



I n,,( 






'V-x. 







fi 






M 



I'l 






">:-V' 







:u .1 1 '.i>iiir^n^=.:':;'-i>ei>-r c: 




l.'lidhfrre CiTJOiuaali 



ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY: 

A SERIES OF POPULAR LECTURES, 

IN WHICH 

POPERY AND PROTESTANTISM 

ARE CONTRASTED; 
SHOWING THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE FORMER WITH 






BY N. L. RICE, D. dV, '^-^^iX^ ^' 

PASTOR OF THE CENTRAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, CINCW^Alfli /^TOV^ > "^ . 



CINCINNATI: 
WM. H. MOORE & CO., PUBLISHERS: 

NEW-YORK : MARK H. NEWMAN & CO. 

1847, 




A^^fc 



f^/^" 



Entered according to Act of Congress^ in the year 1847, by 
WILLIAM H. MOORE & 00. , 
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Ohio. 



E. SHEPARD, STEREOTYPER, 

No. 1] Columbia Street. 



MORGAN & OVEREND, PRINTERS, 

Main Street. 



PREFACE. 

The controversy between Romanism and Christianity 
seems now destined to be the great controversy of the nine^ 
teenth century. In Europe and America, Rome is making 
renewed and vigorous efForts, to regain her lost power; but 
the United States is her favorite field of missionary enter- 
prise. The extent of our territory, the cheapness of our 
land, the fertility of our soil, and our free institutions, 
hold out strong inducements to immigration from Europe. 
These, with other causes, no less potent, are flooding our 
country with immense crowds of foreigners, the very large 
majority of whom are ignorant and degraded ; and a still 
larger number have learned from infancy to yield implicit 
obedience to the teachings and the commands of the 
Roman clergy. This rapidly increasing population is 
placing in their hands a tremendous power, which may 
well excite apprehensions in the minds of Americans. 

The Roman clergy, too, would seem to have become the 
friends of "popular education^ and are zealously engaged 
in establishing, in every part of our country, and particu- 
larly in the great West, permanent institutions for the edu- 
cation of the youth of both sexes. To aid them in this 
work, large sums of money are annually transmitted by 
societies in Europe — whose object it is, to extend the influ- 
ence of Popery. And, although the clergy disclaim any 
design to interfere with the religious views of Protestant 
youths, thus inducing large numbers of Protestants to 



Vi PREFACE. 



patronize their shools, they do boast, in their letters to 
their European patrons, of the number of converts gained 
thus from our ranks. 

The time has come when it is most important that 
every man, who is the friend of true rehgion, or of free 
institutions, should understand the character of this grow- 
ing influence ; when Protestants should know what are 
the differences between us and the church of Rome ; and 
on what grounds they protest against her exclusive 
claims. Many intelligent men have been accustomed 
to regard Poj)ery as a system so full of all manner of ab- 
surdities and ridiculous superstitions, that it cannot bear 
the light of the nineteenth century — especially in this en- 
lightened country. They forget that a large proportion 
of the population of our country are almost wholly ig- 
norant of the Scriptures, and of the nature of true re- 
ligion ; and, consequently, are easily misled on this im- 
portant subject. The Roman clergy are well aware of 
this state of things. " The missions to America," says the 
Annals of the Propagation of the Faith, " are of high im- 
portance to the church. The superabmidant population 
of ancient Europe is flowing towards the United States. 
Each one arrives, not with his religion, but with his indif- 
ference. The greater part are disposed to embrace the doc- 
trine, whatever it be, that is first preached to them. We 
must make haste ; the moments are precious. America may 
one day become the center of civilization — and shall truth 
or error establish there its empire ? If the Protestant sects 
are beforehand with us, it will be difiicult to destroy their 
influence." 



PREFACE. vii 



Romanism is, indeed, full of absurdities ; but it claims 
a venerable antiquity ; its rites are, many of them, impos- 
ing, and its doctrines, when skillfully set forth by a cun- 
ning priest, are not without plausibility. Besides, it is a 
religion admirably adapted to please the carnal mind. 
Human nature has always been disposed to a religion of 
pomp and show, of external rites and ceremonies, a reli- 
gion which proposes to save by human merit, rather than 
by divine grace, and which does not severely condemn 
loose morals. Such a religion is that taught by Rome. 
Who, then, can wonder that it gains converts, especially 
when it finds access to the uninformed and susceptible 
minds of the young. 

The present unhappy controversy in the Episcopal 
church, should be instructive to other denominations. In 
that church has arisen a party, not of ignorant persons, but 
of men of learning, who are really Papists, and who are 
rapidly going over to Rome. The reason of this state of 
things is doubtless to be found in the fact, that that church 
was never thoroughly reformed. Not a few of the evan- 
gelical ministers of the Episcopal church have discovered, 
and are now proclaiming this truth, and calling for a com- 
plete expurgation of the leaven of Popery. But there are 
facts enough to show the folly of folding our arms in self- 
security, under the impression that Popery cannot live in 
a country so enlightened as ours. Its exclusive claims 
will be zealously, plausibly pressed in every part of 
our land ; and therefore it is our duty to place an anti- 
dote, if possible, in the hands of every family and every 
individual. 



viii PREFACE. 



The following lectures were delivered by the author to 
his own church last winter, in the course of his ministerial 
labors. The interest they were the means, under God, of 
awakening on the subjects discussed, and the desire of 
many who heard them, to see them in print, have induced 
him to prepare them for the press. He is aware that the 
number of books on this extensive controversy is very 
large ; but he hopes the work he now ventures to place 
before the public, may fill a place, and be of some ser- 
vice to those who are seeking the truth. Almost all the 
works he has read on this controversy are either too costly 
for general circulation, and too learned for the mass of 
readers, or devoted to the discussion of only a few of 
the important points of difference between Protestants 
and Papists. And most of the publications designed for 
popular use, while they state and refute the doctrines of 
Rome, do not state them in the language of the standard 
writers of that denomination, and refer to the author 
and the page. Consequently, Romanists deny that their 
church holds such doctrines ; and the minds of read- 
ers are left in doubt Avhether there has not been misrepre- 
sentation: or, confiding in the solemn declarations of im- 
candid men, they are strongly prejudiced against the very 
doctrines the writer is defending. 

Fifteen years ago, the author of these lectures was prov- 
identially located in Bardstown, Ky.^ w^here, at that time, 
Romanism was the controlling influence. He purchased 
a number of the standard works of Romanists, and read 
them carefully. A lengthy discussion of the subject, with 
strong opposition, made him familiar with the doctrines of 



PREFACE. ix 



Rome, and with the mode of defense adopted by her clergy. 
The results of his studies are now thrown together in the form 
of popular lectures. The doctrines of the church of Rome 
are stated in the precise language of the decrees of her gene- 
ral councils, her catechisms, and her standard authors ; and 
the principal arguments relied on for the defense of them 
are carefully considered. It is often said that it is unfair 
to charge all the folly and wickedness of the church in the 
dark ages, upon Romanists of the present day ; that they 
have improved as much as others. This objection, which, 
though not valid, has much weight with many minds, is 
obviated by quoting, almost exclusively, works of modem 
date — such as are now read and circulated by Romanists. 
From these it is easy to prove that Rome is now just what 
she has ever been ; that the increasing light of the nine- 
teenth century has not yet illumined her darkness. 

On a subject on which so much has been written by 
men eminent for their learning and talents, it is not to be 
expected that much, if anything, that is really new, can 
be presented. In these lectures, however, if the author is 
not mistaken, the manner in which the different subjects 
are discussed, will be found somewhat different from that 
most commonly adopted ; and he ventures to think, that 
for popular discussion, it has some advantages. It has 
been his design, not to say all that might be said on any 
one point, but enough to satisfy the sincere inquirer after 
truth. 

The present volume is designed to present a fair and 
tolerably complete outline of the controversy between Pro- 
testants and Papists. Those who will take the trouble Xo 



PREFACE. 



give it a careful reading, it is believed, will be at no loss to 
know -what Popery is, and to distingmsh between its errors 
and superstitions, and the gospel of Christ. In the lecture on 
the true churchy it was not the purpose of the author to enter, 
at any length, into the discussion of the question, whether 
the ordinances, as administered by the Chiurch of Rome, 
are valid (though some remarks are briefly made, bearing 
on that point), but rather to enable the inquirer to find the 
true church, and to expose the plausible, but sophistical, 
arguments of Romanists, in favor of the exclusive claims 
of theirs. 

For the lecture on Education in Roman Schools^ the 
author bespeaks a careful perusal. This subject, he is 
convinced, is practically of the very first importance. 
The true character and design of Roman schools are not 
understood ; noi are Protestants half awake to the impor- 
tance of establishing permanent institutions, especially 
female institutions, of a character Avhich will bring them 
into successful competition with those estabhshed by the 
Roman clergy. 

These lectures have been prepared more hastily than 
the author desired, in consequence of other pressing en- 
gagements — especially those connected with the pastoral 
care of a newly organized and rapidly increasing church. 
Such as they are, they are now thrown before the public 
in the hope, and with the prayer, that the Head of the 
Church will bless them as a means of guarding the minds 
of many against the insidious attacks of error, and leading 
them to a knowledge of the truth, as it is contained in 
the pure Word of God. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



LECTURE I. 

' Efible a Light fo the Feet — Right of Free Discussion — Cannot defend our 
Faith without assailing that of Romanists — Relative Positions of Church of 
Rome and Protestants — Exclusive Claims of the former, as seen in Decrees 
of Council of Trent — Anathemas — Standard Authors quoted — Infallibity 
Key-stone of Roman Arch — Rule of Faith of Rome — Stated by Bishop 
Hughes — Bishop Milner — Church Defined by Hughes — Church not really 
their Rule, but Pope and Bishops — Protestant Rule — Protestants and Papists 
agree on two Points — ^First Argument against Roman Infallibility — Cannot 
be Proved by Tradition — Nor by Scripture — Milner's Doctrine concerning 
the Canon, and the Interpretation of Scripture — Marks of the Church — Im- 
possibility, according to Milner, of ascertaining whether Church of Rome has 
them — Impossibility of joining the Church of Rome without denying her 
Infalhbility — Controversies in Church of Rome disprove her Infallibility 
— Different Opinions concerning her Infallibility — Where it is Lodged — 
Transalpine and Cisalpine Opinions, as stated by Butler — Practical im- 
portance of the Question in Dispute-— Singular Character of the Contro- 
versy — It can Never be Settled — Absurd Distinction between Faith and 
Opinions — Alternative if Pope and Council should Differ — Controversy 
concerning the Pope's Temporal Power — Popes take advantage of their 
Undefined Authority — Acknowledgments of Butler and Milner — Dilemma 
in which Popes are placed — Church Ignorant or Unfaithful — Authority 
of Universities worthless — Contradictory Opinions concerning General 
Councils — Infallible Definition of General Council necessary — New Testa- 
ment silent on this point — The Doctrine oi Acceptation perfectly Indefinite 
— Infallibility of General Councils of a New Kind — Not Scriptural — First 
Christian Council — Its Inspiration — Excellence of the Bible. — II. 

LECTURE II. 

Example of the Bereans — Commended by Luke — Principles Deduced — 
Milner's Attempt to Evade the Argument — Meaning of 2 Pet. i, 19 — In- 
fallibility of Rome does not extend far enough — She is unable to Interpret 
a large portion of the Bible — Absurdity of her Claims — Her Infallibility 
does not extend to Discipline and Opinions — Points included under these 
Heads — Taking Cup from the Laity — Unauthorised and presumptuous 
Change of Sacred Ordinance — Milner's acknowledgment in favor of the 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



Protestant Faith — Celibacy of the Clergy a Matter of Discipline — ^Purcell's 
declaration— 'Fallible Discipline against the Scriptures — The Pope, in the 
face of God's Prohibition, Nullifies Marriage — Purceil's Position concerning 
Peter's wife — His Imputations against the Teachings of God — Reeve's 
Account of the Clergy of the 11th Century — Protestant Ministry never 
thus Degraded — Law forbiding Laity to Read the Scriptures — Its Presump- 
tion — Apostles not Fallible in Discipline — Opinions — What they are— Per- 
secutions placed under this head — Bishop Hughes' Position concerning the 
Persecution of the Waldenses — His Defense makes the Matter Worse — Per- 
secuting Edicts of 4th Council of Lateran — Bishop Hughes' weak Defense 
of the Council — Dilemma in which the Council is Placed — Cardinal Bella- 
mine's Defense of Persecution — Proves that the Church has Persecuted, 
and Justifies it — Inquisition Established by the Pope — Still Cherished at 
Rome — Hughes' Evasion — Persecution a Matter not of Opinion^ but of 
Morals — Nothing in the Religion of Papists to forbid the most Horrid Per- 
secutions — Scriptures Quoted in favor of Church Infallibility examined — 
Strange Inconsistency of the Roman Clergy — Matt, xviii, 15; xxiii, ^0; 
xvi, 18—1 Tim. iii, 15— John xiv, 26 and xvi, 13— Fallibility of the Church 
Under the Old Dispensation — Traditions Condemned — Mil ner's Unsatisfac- 
tory Answer — Christ's Denunciation of the Jewish Teachings — Jewish 
Church Rejected and Crucified the Son of God — Milner's Answer Exposed 
—Evils of Church Interpretation greater than of "Private Interpretation." 
—Purceil's Declaration that the Bible is a Dead Letter. — 35. 



LECTURE in. 

Scribes and Pharisees successors of Moses, yet False Teachers — Argu- 
ment from Succession Inconclusive — Unity of Faith does not prove Faith 
True — Evils resulting from Implicit Faith in Fallible Men— Evils resulting 
from the Roman Rule — Corruption of the Word of God by Human Com- 
positions — Apocrypha Rejected by the Jewish Church — Testimony of 
Josephus — Acknowledgments of Bishops Trevern and Milner — Dilemma — 
Testimony of Dr. Jahn — Christ, and Apostles never quoted Apocryphal 
Books, nor charged Jews with Unfaithfulness — Apocryphal Books not re- 
ceived by the Early Christian Writers — Catalogue of Melito, Oregen, Cyril, 
Athanasius, &c., &c. — ^Not sufficient to prove Theological Doctrines — 
Placed in Second Canon till the Meeting of the Council of Trent — Old 
Traditions — Meaning of the Word, as used by the Bible, and by the Fathers 
— The Point in Controversy Stated — Jewish Church had no Divine Tra- 
ditions — ^New Testament affords no evidence in favor of Oral Traditions — 
Protestants do not Rely on Oral Traditions— Unanimous Consent of the 
Fathers— Who are They— All Fallible— Several of them fell into Serious 
Errors — Differed from each other, and from Rome — Church of Rome makes 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



New Articles of Faith — Papists not permitted to hear God Speak to Them— 
Milner's Declaration on the Subject — People Required to Read Original 
Languages, &c. — Rome cannot Correct her Errors — All Roman Catholics 
must Believe and Defend Them — Decision of the Council of Constance con- 
cerning the Safe Conduct granted John Hass — Contradictory Statements 
of Hughes and Reeve— -No Faith to bo kept with Heretics — Superiority of 
the Protestant Rule. — 65» 

LECTURE IV. 

Individual Accountability, and the Consequent Right of Free Investiga- 
tion — Folly and Wickedness of Enforcing Religious Faith by Civil Penalties 
— Fundamental Principles of Romanism Inconsistent with Liberty of Con- 
science and Human Freedom — They put the Mind completely in tlie Hands 
of the Clergy — Their Commands enforced by tremendous Sanctions'—Ju- 
dicial Forgiveness — Council of Trent and Catechism of Trent — Keys of the 
Kingdom — Unlimited Power of the Pope and the Clergy — Gods on Earth — 
Their Power of a Peculiar Kind — Nothing in their Character to render it 
Harmless — Many of Them, especially in Roman Countries, grossly Immoral 
— Avowed Principles of the Roman Clergy with regard to Religious Tolera- 
tion — ^Deposition of King John — Bellamine's Principles — Hughes' Evasion 
— Notes in Rhemish Testament — Sentiments of the Belgian Bishops — ^Dr. 
Cerothy's Acknowledgment — Councils of Lateran and Constance decide in 
favor of Persecution — Inquisition recognized by the Council of Trent - 
Devoti's account of its Origin and Design — Mode of Arrest, as stated by 
D. Antonio Puigblauch — Still Cherished in Rome — The Pope and his Clergy 
Responsible for It — Bishop Hughes' Opinion of It Encyclical Letter of 
Gregory XVI— Intolerance in all Roman Countries — Persecutions in the 
Island of Madeira — ^Views of the Roman Clergy of this Country — Their 
commendation of the Encyclical Letter of Gregory XVI — Bishop Hughes' 
Views of Spanish and Italian Intolerance — The Objection, that Protestants 
have Persecuted, Answered — Political Power of the Roman Clergy of This 
Country — Withering Influence of Popery on the Morals and Prosperity of 
Countries where it Prevails. — 89. 

LECTURE V. 

Christ the only Head of His Church, the Husband, Head, and Foundation 
— ^Doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy, Stated — If true, it must bo very 
Clearly Revealed — Milner's Admission — Must be Proved by what Papists 
call Private Interpretation of Scripture — An insuperable Difficulty in the 
Way — Inconsistency of Romanism — First Argument — Qualification and 
Authority of Pope Undefined and Indefinable — Ambiguous Language of 
the Council of Florence — Practice of the Popes — ^John, King of England 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



and Otho, Emperor of Germany Deposed — Alexander VI gave America 
to Ferdinand and Emmanuel — Second Argument — Titles and Honors 
claimed by the Pope, Prove his Apostacy — Scriptures relied on to prove 
Supremacy, examined — Peter a Married Man — ^History — ^Practical work- 
ing of the Doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy, proves it False — Church of 
Christ not united under one Visible Head — Question, where was Your 
Church before Luther? — ^Answered — 119. 

LECTURE VL 

Repentance a Change of Mind — The Doctrine of Penance Stated — Com- 
mand to do Penance not in the Scriptures — If we admit the Doway Trans- 
lation, Penance Required before Baptism — Sacrament of Penance not in the 
Bible — Two of its Parts Unscriptural — The Kind of Confession Protestants 
Admit — Division of Sins into Mortal and Venial, Absurd and Unscriptural 
— The Language of Roman Writers Perfectly Indefinite — Moral Code of 
Rome Rotten — Calculated to Make Men Dishonest and Untruthful — Stolen 
Property not always Restored — -St. Ligori's Moral Theology — This Distinc- 
tion Necessary to Auricular Confession — Auricular Confession not found 
in the Old Testament, nor in the New — Meaning of Keys of the Kingdom of 
Keaven — Tendency and Effects of Auricular Confession — Declarations of 
Ligori — Testimony of Rev. J. B. White — Of Waddy Thompson, Esq. — Satis- 
faction Stated — Doctrine of Protestants — No Temporal Punishment Due to 
Sins Forgiven — Priests, Prophets, Christ, and the Apostles Never Prescribed 
Penances — Doctrine of Satisfaction Contradicts those Scriptures which 
Speak of the Atonement of Christ — If Temporal Punishment Due to Sins 
Forgiven, Due to those Committed before Baptism — Absurdity of the Doc- 
trine — Doctrine of No Practical Advantage, but Calculated to Deceiver- 
Gives to the Clergy Tremendous Power — 145. 

LECTURE VII. 

No Condemnation to Believers — Therefore Doctrine of Indulgences and 
Purgatory False — Doctrine of Indulgences Stated — Power to Grant In- 
dulgences not given the Church — Doctrine Founded on Division of Sins 
into Mortal and Venial, and Temporal Punishment Due to Sins Forgiven, 
and therefore False — No such thing as Superabundant Merits of Saints — 
No Counsels, in addition to the Commands of Christ — The most Devoted 
Christian Fails in the Discharge of his Duty — Merits of Christ, though In- 
finite, are not at the Disposal of the Pope or the Church — Dilemma in 
which Romanists are Placed — Conditions on which Indulgences are Granted, 
and the Use Made of the Doctrine, Prove it False — Blessed Beads — In- 
dulgences Used to Excite Men to Engage in War — To Build St. Peter's — 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



To Fill the Pope's Treasury — The Doctrine a Source of Power to the 
Clergy — Purgatory — Decree of the Council of Trent — No Such Place Men- 
tioned in the Bible — This Doctrine Inconsistent with the Work of the Holy 
Spirit — The Burning of Fire Cannot Produce Holiness — Passages of Scrip- 
ture relied on, Examined — Moses' Law Prescribes No Sacrifice for the Dead 
— Old Testament Contains No Prayers for the Dead — Limbo Patrum — 
Doctrine of Purgatory a Source of Wealth and Power to the Clergy — 
Cruelty of the Doctrine — 175, ^ 

LECTURE VIU. 

Lord's Supper — Its Nature and Design Stated — ^Doctrine of Rome Stated 
— ^It Involves Contradictions and Absurdities — Contradicts the Testimony 
of the Senses— Not a Mystery nor a Miracle — Examination of Scripture 
Passages — Scripture Usage' — Romanists Interpret only Part of our Saviour's 
Language Literally — Bread and Wine still called Bread and Wine — Ex- 
amination of John VI — Bishop Trevern's Inconsistency — The Changes 
made in this Sacrament by the Roman Clergy, Prove their Doctrine False 
— Taking the Cup from the Laity and Non-Officiating Clergy — Acknow- 
ledgment of the Council of Trent — Reason Given for this Change, examined — 
The Roman Clergy by Fallible Discipline change that which was Infallibly 
Established — Implied Charge of Bishop Milner against his Church — The 
Faith of Protestants most strikingly Illustrated by Administering the Sup- 
per as it was Administered by Christ — The Roman Faith Requires a Change 
— Additions made to the Lord's Supper — The words *'Soul and Divinity," 
added to suit the Faith of Rome — Ridiculous Directions to Communicants 
— The Doctrine of Rome Proved False by the Worship of the Bread and 
Wine — Processions in Romish Countries — Thompson''s Testimony — Doc- 
trine of the Mass^ further Evidence against Transubstantiation — The Doc- 
trine Stated — Its Absurdity — Mystical Effusion of Blood, Unmeaning — 
Purposes for which Mass is said to be Offered, Prove it False — ^No Priests 
in the Christian Church, and therefore no Sacrifice — No Altar — Scriptures 
speak of no Sacrifice of Christ, but that on the Cross — This Doctrine a 
Source of Power and Wealth to the Clergy — 205. 

LECTURE IX. 

God the only Object of Religious Worship — Worship of Images, Saints, 
and Relics, Stated — Use of Images and Pictures in the Worship of God 
Unlawful— Second Commandment— Its Meaning — Omitted in Romish Cate- 
chisms — Charge made against Pagans lies against Rome — Picture of Trini- 
ty — Romish Exposition of Second Precept Proved False — No Picture or 
Image of God in Jewish Temple — Jews led to Idolatry by Brazen Ser- 
pents—Scriptures afford no Precept, Permission, or Example of Worship 



TABLE OF CONTENTS, 



of Saints or Images — 'No Saints' Days in the Bible — Absurdity of Praying 
to Saints — Miracles wrought at the Tombs of Saints not Real — Thomp- 
son's Account of the Church — Mosheim's Account of Relics — Milner's De- 
fense of the Doctrine — ^Inspired Men did not thus reason — ^Superiority of 
the Scripture Doctrine — ^235, 

LECTURE X. 

INVENTIONS OF ROME. 

Efficacy of Ordinances and Ceremonies, a Popular Doctrine— Suited to 
the Carnal Mind — Disposition to Multiply Ordinances, Illustrated by Pagan- 
ism and Judaism — This Error leads Men to Undervalue True Religion and 
Pure Morality — Romish Church more Corrupt than the Jewish Church- 
Holy Days Unauthorized by the New Testament — Consequent Desecration 
of the Sabbath — Acknowledgment of Bishop Trevorn — Arch-Bishop Ec- 
cleston's Doctrine Concerning the Sabbath — Extreme Unction — True De- 
sign of the Anointing mentioned by James- — Acknowledgment of the Cate- 
chism of Trent — Prayers of Rome — ^Litany of the Blessed Sacrament — 
Prayer to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and of Mary — Litany of the Infant 
Jesus — ^Unmeaning Repetitions^ — Holy Ashes — Ceremony of Blessing the 
Ashes, as contained in the Roman Missal — Holy Palm, Its Virtues — Holy 
Fire — Holy Water — Corruptions of the Ordinance of Baptism— Apostolic 
Baptism, Contrasted — ^Blessed Candles — Holy Medals — ^AgnusDei's — Their 
Wonderous Virtues — Ceremony of Blessing Horses at the Convent of St, 
Anthony at Rome — ^Impiety of this Custom- — ^Bishop Hughes' Defense of It 
— Legends of Saints — Absurd Story of St. Philip Nerius— Miracle of fhe 
Pope's Horse — Soul of Theodoric carried to Hell by Pope John — St. Peter's 
Chains— Miraculous Discovery of the Body of Stephen the Proto-Martyr — 
Translation of the House of Loretto — Stories concerning St. Januarius — 
Miraculous Liquifaction of his Blood — Breviary full of such Stories — Do the 
Roman Clorgy Really Believe Them — Church of Rome, Apostate — ^267. 

LECTURE XL 

CHUIST HAS BUT ONE CHURCH. 

Desirableness of being in Communion with It — Rule for Finding the True 
Church — Traditions of no Service — We cannot Rely on the Writings of 
Uninspired Men — ^Differences among Ramish Historians — ^The People gen- 
erally cannot Enter into these Controversies — Romish Catalogues of the 
Popes Prove Nothing — The Question, Where were the Protestant Churches 
before the days of Luther, Calvin, &c., Answered — Efforts of the Roman 
Clergy to Blacken the Characters of the Reformers, Waldenses, &c., Un- 
availing—Objection that the Reformers did not Work Miracles, Refuted- — 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



True Church must be Discovered by the Scriptures — Apostohc Church and 
Church of Rome, Compared — Their Organization and Officers — Their Wor- 
ship — Their Ordinances — Their Doctrines — Church of Rome Excommuni- 
cates and Anathematizes all who Refuse to Believe her Errors — She Re- 
quires all to Commit Idolatry — Position taken by the Council of Trent — 
Reason for Refusing to Recognise the Church of Rome — The Church by 
coming out of Babylon did not Unchurch Herself — Answer to the Ques- 
tion, How shall We Find the True Church — Unity of the Church — Unity of 
Rome, not Scriptural — ^Protestant Churches Traced up to the Apostles — A 
Brighter Day in the Future History of the Church — 293. 

LECTURE XIL 

DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF PARENTS. 

The Rising Generation the Hope of the Church and of the Country — 
Great Influence of Teachers, evident from the Design of Education — Teach- 
ers must Secure the Respect and Affection of their Pupils — ^Pohcy of 
the Roman Clergy — Objections to Roman Schools — They Cannot give a 
Thorough Education — ^Religion and Morals a Forbidden Subject of Investi- 
gation — These Intimately Connected with other Branches of Science — 
Natural Philosophy and Astronomy — Philosophers in Roman Countries 
— They Cannot Teach Mental and Moral Science — Moral Principles of 
Romanists Radically Unsound — Their Effect on the Morals of Youth — 
The Perfection of Roman Virtue Consists in Punishing the Body, &c. — Ac- 
count of Virgin Rosa, and of Antonius — The Breviary abounds in such 
Stories — Endorsed by Rev. J. Reeve — Desecration of the Sabbath — Moral 
Principles of the Jesuits — Roman Schools will not Teach History Correctly 
— ^Nor the Principles of Civil and Religious Liberty — Government of the 
Jesuits, a Perfect Despotism — -The Real Design of Roman Schools to make 
Converts and Money — Neglect of Popular Education in Roman Countries 
— Character of St. Joseph's College — Roman Schools Adapted to make Con- 
verts — Exclude Protestant Books—Conversion of Dr. Riley in Georgetown 
College — Boasting of Papists — Sin of Protestant Parents in Exposing their 
Children thus — Character of Nunneries — Degradation of Nuns — Milly 
McPherson, the Lost Nun; and the celebrated Law Suit in Kentucky — • 
Letters of Nuns to their Priests — Capital Error of Protestants — Conclusion 
—319. 



ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 



LECTURE I. 

Psalms cxix, 105, " Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my 

path." 

By this language of the Psalmist, we are taught that the Word 
of God presents with much clearness the doctrines and duties of 
revealed religion, and consequently, that it can be understood by the 
sincere inquirer after truth. It is light ; and light — when there is 
an eye to see — reveals surrounding objects. He represents him- 
self as walking through a dark region in a dangerous way, and the 
word of God as his lamp — :the light by which the safe path is clearly 
revealed. In another Psalm he says, " The entrance of thy word 
giveth light." And Paul, the apostle, says, "All Scripture is 
given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for 
reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness ; that 
the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all 
good works." These passages of God's word afford a suitable 
introduction to the discussion, on which I propose now to enter, 
of the prominent doctrines of the Reformation. 

The Reformation of the 16th century is an event of deep inte- 
rest to all classes of men — to the Christian, to the statesman, and 
to the friend of free institutions. The Christian looks to it as the 
period when, as once of old, the Bible, found amid the rubbish 
of human traditions which had been accumulating for ages, began 
again to pour forth its pure light upon the astonished minds of the 
benighted people ; when Christianity arose from her long-contin- 



12 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

ued prostration, and began to put on her strength, and to clothe 
herself in her beautifid garments. Many who make no preten- 
sions to religion, regard it as the event by which the true princi- 
ples of civil and religious liberty were developed, and the fetters 
which ecclesiastical and civil despotism had riveted upon the 
bodies and souls of men, struck off. After the lapse of three 
centuries, the principles of the Reformation are still wielding a 
tremendous power over men, and moulding the character of the 
Riightiest nations on the globe ; and it requires not the spirit of 
prophecy to predict, that their influence in years to come is not 
likely to |je more circumscribed. The character of these princi- 
ples, and their effect upon the Christian church and the world, 
present a subject of legitimate inquiry, a subject replete with 
valuable instruction. 

It is not a little strange that when we propose to discuss these 
great principles, many well-meaning persons take the alarm, as if 
we were commencing a species of persecutio?i against Roman 
Catholics. Far from it. We have no denunciations to hurl 
against persons who may differ from us ; nor do we intend to say 
a word which can give just ground of offense to any one. But 
we do intend, with all freedom, to discuss the merits of great 
practical principles which exert a mighty influence in moulding 
the character and fixing the destiny of individuals and of nations. 
It is a self-evident principle, that when there are equal interests 
involved in any subject, there are equal rights to investigate and 
discuss. Now, I am as deeply interested in the question — for 
example — whether the Pope of Rome is the divinely appointed 
head of the church of Christ, as any man on earth ; and so are 
the people to whom I preach, and to whom I am most solemnly 
bound " to declare the whole council of God." Consequendy, 
my right freely to discuss the subject, is most unquestionable. 

But why, one is ready to ask, do you not preach your own 
faith without assailing that of others ? What is my faith on the 
point just mentioned? It is not simply, that Christ is the head 
of the church, but that he is the only head. Now, Roman Catho- 
lics claim that the Pope of Rome is the visible head of the 



FREE DISCUSSION. 13 



church, the vicar of Christ on earth ; and they pronounce us he- 
retics and rebels against divine authority, because we refuse to 
acknowledge his claims. We cannot, therefore, defend our faith 
without proving the Pope's claims to be spurious. When a Ro- 
man priest attempts to prove that the Pope is the head of the 
church, he is as truly chargeable with persecuting me, as I am 
with persecuting him in proving the opposite. The charge of 
persecution, in either case, is ridiculous. If the claims of the 
church of Rome are founded in truth, the man who would con- 
vince me of that fact, would be my best friend ; if they are false, 
I could do no greater kindness to a Roman Catholic, than to con- 
vince him of his error. 

It is important to the right under-standing of this subject, to 
define clearly the relative positions of the church of Rome and 
Protestant denominations. In doing so, as in all the statements 
I shall make in regard to the tenets of the Roman church, I shall 
quote the decrees of her councils, her catechisms, and her stan- 
dard authors. I prefer to quote, as far as possible, those authors 
who have written in the English language, and are now circula- 
ted as standard writers, that there may be no dispute about trans- 
laiions, nor whether the doctrines quoted are now held and taught 
by that church. I intend that every intelligent hearer shall be 
able to understand the force of the arguments I adduce. 

The claims of the church of Rome will be seen in the follow- 
mg decree of the Council of Trent, which met in the 16th cen- 
tury, and which is regarded by Romanists as infallible: "In 
order to restrain petulant minds, the Council further decrees, that 
in matters of faith and morals, and whatever relates to the main- 
tenance of Christian doctrine, no one, confiding in his own judg- 
ment, shall dare to wrest the sacred Scriptures to his own sense 
of them, contrary to that which hath been held, and still is held, 
by holy mother church — whose right it is to judge of the true 
meaning and interpretation of Sacred Writ — or contrary to the 
unanimous consent of the fathers, even though such interpreta- 
tions should never be published. If any disobey, let them be 
denounced by the ordinaries, and punished according to law." 



14 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

The creed of Pope Pius IV, published after the meeting of the 
Council of Trent, and which was designed to embody the doc- 
trines of the Council, requires of all who join that church, the 
following professions: "I acknowledge the holy Catholic and 
Apostolical Roman church, the mother and 7mstress of all 
churches ; and I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman 
Bishop, the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the Apostles, 
and Vicar of Jesus Christ." Again: "I most truly admit and 
embrace apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other 
constitutions and observances of the same church. I also admit 
the sacred Scriptures according to the sense which the holy 
mother church has held, and does hold — to whom it belongs to 
judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures ; 
nor will I ever take or interpret them otherwise than according 
to the unanimous consent of the fathers." 

Such are the high pretensions of the church of Rome. She 
claims to be the divinely appointed expounder of God's revela- 
tion to man, and forbids, under severe penalty, any one to under- 
stand that revelation otherwise than as she directs. And every 
one of her dogmas is enforced by an anathema — a destructive 
curse — upon the man who ventures to deny its infallible truth. 
I give a single example. The first canon of the Council of 
Trent on transubstantiation, reads as follows : " Whoever shall 
deny, that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist there are 
truly, really, and substantially contained, the body and blood of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, together with his soul and divinity, and, 
consequently Christ entire,, but shall affirm that he is present 
therein only in a sign, or figure, or by his power — let him be 
accursed.^^ With a similar anathema is every one of the doc- 
trines of Rome guarded. And when the Council was about to 
adjourn, the presiding cardinal, the Pope's legate, exclaimed: 
'' Anathema to all heretics!" and the Bishops responded, "Anath- 
ema! anathema !" 

Now, if these claims of the church of Rome are founded in 
truth, and these anathemas divinely sanctioned, what a condition 
we Protestants are in ! But, if her claims are spurious, and, 



CLAIMS OF ROME. 15 

consequently, her anathemas unsanctioned by Christ, what shall 
we say of those who thus presume to "lord it over God's heri- 
tage," and curse men for not abandoning Christ to follow them I 
Will not their anathemas recoil on their own heads ? 

These pretensions of the church of Rome are founded upon 
her claim to infallibility in her teaching. She professes to be 
guided in all her decisions concerning doctrines and morals, by 
the spirit of inspiration, and therefore demands that her dogmas 
shall be received as the word of the eternal God. This doctrine 
of church-infallibility is the keystone in the Roman arch. He 
who disbelieves this, must abandon her communion. We are 
Protestants ; and against all her exclusive pretensions and anathe- 
mas, we enter our solemn protest, and assign our reasons. 

Let me distinctly state what is the rule of faith acknowledged 
by the Roman church, and what rule is acknowledged by Protes- 
tants, and then proceed to examine their respective claims. The 
Roman Catholic rule is thus stated by Bishop Hughes, of New 
York, in his written discussion with Dr. J. Breckenridge : " Our 
rule of faith is laid down in the Apostles' creed — I believe in the 
holy Catholic church."* It may be well here to remark, that 
the creed called the Apostles', as all agree, was written, not by 
the Apostles, but long after their death. Moreover, it does not 
say, " I believe in the holy Catholic church, as an infallible rule 
of faith y We, too, believe in the holy Catholic church ; but 
we do not believe in the church of Rome ; nor do we believe in 
any church as a rule of foAth. Dr. Milner, an eminent Roman 
bishop, thus defines the Roman rule : " Scripture and tradition, 
and these propounded and explained by the Catholic church. "t 
The church, then, is the Roman Catholic rule. It may be well, 
therefore, to inquire what Hughes and Milner mean by the 
church. Hughes thus defines it : " By the church, I understand 
that visible society of Christians, composed of the people who 
are taught, and the pastors who teach, by virtue of a certain 
divine commission, recorded in the 28th chapter of Matthew, 
addressed to the Apostles and their legitimate successors, until 
* Let. iv, p. 34, t End of Con , Let. x. 



16 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

the end of the world. ""^^ Observe, the church consists of the 'peo- 
ple and their pastors^ and they together constitute " holy mother 
church" — the rule of faith. Now, it seems to us rather strange, 
that the church should be the rule of faith to the church — the 
school its own teacher ! But so it is. Let us not, however, be 
deceived here. The church, we are told, is the rule of faith ; 
and yet the people and the lower orders of the clergy, who con- 
stitute the great body of the church, are no part of that rule. 
The Pope and his bishops alone decide on matters of faith; 
and from their decision there is no appeal. So says Bishop Tre- 
vern, a standard writer in the church of Rome. " Let it then be 
established as a principle, that to the bishops exclusively belong 
the right of declaring what has, or has not, been revealed ; that 
is, what is conformable or contrary to Scripture and tradition, or 
simply to one of the two."t The bishops, then, constitute the 
rule of faith. With what propriety they are called " holy mother^'' 
I cannot see ; but, it is well to understand, that when Roman 
Catholics direct us to " holy mother church," as their rule of 
faith, they mean the \\(^y fathers — the bishops ! 

The Protestant rule of faith is the bible, containing the Old 
and New Testaments, without the apocryphal books. We be- 
lieve, that these Scriptures contain the whole revelation of God, 
which is designed to constitute a perfect rule of faith and of prac- 
tice. We believe, that there is on earth no infallible interpreter 
of those Scriptures ; that they are to be understood according to 
the well-known principles of language, and that such an inter- 
preter is not needed. 

Which of these rules is the one divinely appointed ? This is 
a most important question. We are on a long journey, through 
a dark world, to heaven or to hell. Eternal interests depend on 
every step. We feel that we need a certain guide. I would be 
willing to follow any guide appointed by Jesus Christ ; but I will 
follow no one who cannot fully establish the fact, that he has 
been so appointed. 

In this discussion I might proceed directly to the proof of the 

* Cath. Con., Let. v, p. 34. f Arnica. Discuss., vol. i, p. 70 



CHURCH INFALLIBILITY. 17 

proposition, that the Scriptures are our only infallible guide — the 
light to our feet J the lamp to our path ; but I prefer first to ex- 
amine the claims of the church of Rome. If they be found spu- 
rious, it will follow, of course, that the Protestant rule is the only 
one divinely appointed. For, let it be remembered, Protestants 
and Roman Catholics agree on two important points, viz: 1. that 
God has given to man a revelation of his will ; 2. that the Scrip- 
tures of the Old and New Testaments constitute a part, at least, 
of that revelation. We say, they contain the whole. Of this I 
propose, in the progress of the discussion, to give clear and posi- 
tive evidence. 

I. My first argument against the infallibility of the church of 
Rome, is, thai there is no evidence hy which it can he proved. Let 
it be remembered, that the whole revelation of God, according to 
the Romanists, is contained in tradition and Scripture — ^^the 
whole loord of God^^ says Bishop Milner, ^' both written and un- 
written^ in other words. Scripture and tradition^* These are to 
be authoritatively expounded by the church. Now it is clear, if 
the whole word of God is contained in Scripture and tradition, 
that the infallibility of the church, if proved at all, must be proved 
from one or the other, or from both of these. There is no other 
source from which evidence can be adduced. 

But this doctrine cannot be proved from tradition — " the un- 
written word." For if there be any traditions of divine authority, 
they are confessedly in the keeping of the church ; and their 
authority depends on her infallilDility. Surely it cannot be ex- 
pected that we will receive, as matters of faith, the traditions of 
a church which we do not know to be the true church of Christ ; 
nor can it be expected that we will receive the traditions of ^. fal- 
lible church. What evidence can we have that the traditions of 
any church are of divine authority, unless assured, upon clear 
evidence, that she is inspired and infallible? In the passage 
already cited from Bishop Trevern, he asserts it as an established 
principle, that to the bishops exclusively belongs the right of 
declaring what has or has not been revealed, what is conformable 

^* * End of Con., Let. x. 



18 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

or contrary to Scripture or tradition. It may be well to quote 
another passage from the same author. After asserting the ab- 
solute necessity of an infallible interpreter of Scripture, he says — 
" We must say as much, and with still better right, for tradition. 
The same judge, the same interpreter that unfolds to us the sense 
of the divine books, manifests to us also that of tradition. Now 
this judge, this interpreter, I must tell you here again, is the 
teaching body of the church, the bishops united in the same 
opinion, at least in a great majority.* 

SincCj then, tradition is exclusively in the keeping of the church 
or her bishops, two points must be determined before we can 
know anything certainly about it, viz.: 1st. We must know 
which of all the rival communions is the true church of Christ ; 
whether the Greek, the Roman, or some one of the Protestant 
churches. 2d. Having found the true church, we must be sat- 
isfied, before we can receive her traditions, if she have any, that 
she is infallible. For it is by no means self-evident, that the 
church of Christ possesses the gift of inspiration ; this point must 
be proved. The infallibility of the church of Rome cannot, 
therefore, be proved by tradition ; because that is in her keeping, 
and cannot be received and relied on, till her infallibility shall 
have been established. 

The infallibility of the church of Rome cannot be proved 
from Scripture.^ for several most important reasons. In the first 
place, Roman bishops assure us, that we cannot know that the 
Scriptures are the word of God, but by the infallible decision of 
the church of Rome. So says the learned Bishop Milner : — 
^' Supposing then you, dear sir, to be the Protestant I have been 
speaking of; I begin with asking you, by what means have you 
learned the canon of Scripture, that is to say, which are the books 
which have been written by divine inspiration ; or indeed that 
any books at all have been so written? You cannot discover 
•either of these things by your rule, &c. Lastly, you have no 
sufficient authority for asserting that the sacred volumes are the 
genuine composition of the holy personages whose names they 

* Amic. Discussion, Vol. i, p. 169. 



CHURCH INFALLIBILITY. 19 

bear, except the tradition and living voice of the Catholic 
church," &c. " Indeed it is so clear that the canon of Scripture 
is built on the tradition of the church, that most learned Protest- 
ants, with Luther himself, have been forced to acknowledge it, 
in terms almost as strong as those in the well-knowm declaration of 
St. Augustine.."* It may be well to say, that I by no means admit 
the truth of the bishop's assertion concerning the acknowledg- 
ments of Protestants. But he asserts unequivocally that the 
canon of Scripture is built on the tradition of the churchy and 
that, aside from her infallible authority, we can have no sufficient 
evidence that any of the books of Scripture were written by in- 
spiration. But, as I have already proved, we must find the true 
church, and be satisfied of her infallibility, before we can receive 
her tradition, or believe the Scriptures inspired on her authority. 
I go to Bishop Pur cell, if you please, and ask him whether he can 
prove to me that his church is infallible in her doctrines and mo- 
rals. He affirms that he can ; and he commences, just as Milner 
does, most inconsistently, by quoting Scripture to me. I stop 
himj and say, "Sir, I know nothing about Scripture. You assert 
that there is no sufficient evidence that the Bible is God's word, 
except the infallible decision of the Catholic church. I am now 
in search of the true church, and am trying to ascertain whether 
she is infallible ; that if she is, I may commit myself unreserv- 
edly to her guidance. When I shall have been satisfied on these 
points, I will hear the church's decision about the inspiration of 
the Scriptures ; but surely you do not expect to prove to me, that 
your church is infallible, by a book which, as you assert, I can- 
not yet know to be inspired. It may, of course, be a mere sys- 
tem of priestcraft." The bishop replies — "You, as a Protestant, 
admit the truth of the Scriptures, and therefore I quote them." 
" Yes, sir, I admit the truth of the Scriptures precisely because I 
do not believe your doctrine. But if you convince me, that 
the authority of the Scriptures depends on the tradition of the 
church, I will not admit tlieir inspiration, until I am satisfied of 
her infallibility." Perhaps he will reply, that he quotes the Bible 

* End of Con.» Letter ix. 



20 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

as uninspired, but authentic history. But is it to be expected 
that my faith can rest upon uninspired history ? Even if it 
could, the infallibility of the church is not a historical fact, which 
might be recorded by uninspired men, but a matter of divine 
revelation, which God only can teach. 

Dr. Milner's method of escaping this diiRculty is truly remark- 
able. He says, " True it is, that I prove the inspiration of Scrip- 
ture by the tradition of the church, and th!it 1 prove the infalli- 
bility of the church by the testimony of Scripture ; but you must 
take notice, that independently of, and prior to, the testimony of 
Scripture, I knew from tradition, and the general arguments of the 
credibility of Christianity, that the church is an illustrious society, 
instituted by Christ, and that her pastors have been appointed by 
him to guide me in the way of salvation."* Observe, he knew 
from tradition ; but tradition, as we have seen, is in the keeping 
of the church, and its truth depends on her infallibility. Yet, 
Dr. Milner tells us, he found tradition, and learned from it, that 
the church was instituted by Christ, and that her pastors were 
appointed as his guide ! That is, he found the testimony before 
he found the witness^ and proved the competency of the witness 
by the testimony ! But he was enlightened on this subject, also, 
by the general arguments for the credibility of Christianity. So, 
then, his faith in the infallibility of his church rested, not on 
divine testimony, but on general arguments for the truth of Chris- 
tianity ! Can such general arguments prove the church inspired? 
May not Christianity be true, and yet the church be fallible ? The 
truth is clear, that if, as Roman bishops constantly affirm, the 
authority of Scripture depends on the tradition of the church, her 
infallibility cannot be proved from Scripture — for we must find 
the true church, and be satisfied of her infallibility, before we can 
have evidence that the Bible is true. But, even if this difficulty 
were removed, and we could have evidence of the inspiration of 
the Scriptures, we are met by another, greater, if possible, than 
the first ; for we are distinctly informed by the Romish bishops, 
that we cannot possibly understand the Scriptures without the 

* End of Con., Let. xi. 



CHURCH INFALLIBILITY. 21 

assistance of the infallible church. So says Dr. Milner : " In 
the first place, it is certain, as a learned Catholic controvertist 
argues, that a person who follows your [Protestant] rule, cannot 
make an act of faith ; this being, according to your great author- 
ity. Bishop Pearson, an assent to the revealed articles, with a 
certain and full persuasion of their revealed truth. * * * ^ 
Now, the Protestant, who has nothing to trust to but his own 
talents in interpreting of the books of Scripture, especially with all 
the difficulties and uncertainties which he labors under, according 
to what I have shown above, never can arrive to this certain assu- 
rance and absolute security, as to what is revealed in Scripture ; 
the utmost he can say, is, such and such appears to me at the present 
moment, to he the sense of the texts before me; and if he is ca7ididj he 
will add, but perhaps upon further consideration, and upon com- 
paring these with other texts^ I may alter my opinion. How far 
short, dear sir, is such mere opinion from the certainty of 
faith !"* The Bishop not only denies that we can, without the 
aid of the infallible church, understand the Scriptures, but he even 
denies our right to attempt it. He says, ^« Before I enter on the 
discussion of any part of Scripture with you or your friends, I 
am bound, dear sir, in conformity with my rule of faith, as ex- 
plained by the Fathers, and particularly by TertuUian, to protest 
against your or their right to argue from Scripture, and, of course, 
to deny any need there is of my replying to any objection which 
you may draw from it — for I have reminded you, that no prophecy 
of Scripture is of any private hiterpretation ; and I have proved 
to you that the whole business of the Scriptures belongs to the 
church. "t 

It strikes us as rather singular, that the Bishop should quote 
Scripture to us to prove that we cannot understand Scripture ; 
and not a little strange, that we cannot as well understand the 
epistles of Peter, who, they say, was the first Pope, as the 
Encyclical letter of Gregory XVI, published in 1832, But the 
doctrine, you perceive, is, that we cannot understand the Scrip- 
tures, and that we have no right to reason about their meaning. 

* End of Con., Let. ix. t Ibid, Let. xii. 



22 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

Why, then, does this same bishop, as well as others, quote the 
Scriptures to prove to us that the church is infallible, when they 
tell us in the same breath, that we cannot understand them ? 

That the force of this argument may be seen, let us inquire 
what are the marks of the true church. Bishop Milner gives 
four, viz. : unity, sanctity, catholicity, and apostolicity. Sup- 
pose, now, I am seeking the true church ; the- question arises^ 
whether these are the marks of the true church, and whether the 
church of Rome has them. To prove that uniti/ is a mark of the 
true church, Milner quotes a number of Scriptures. Of course, 
if I am to be convinced by these passages, I must be able to un- 
derstand them. But let us look at the second mark, riz., saTictiti/, 
sanctity of doctrine. How shall I judge, whether the doctrines 
of the church of Rome are holy 1 If we are to judge from their 
apparent effects upon the mass of those who embrace them, 
we must conclude that few systems of doctrine are less holy.. 
But it is evident, that the doctrines of the church of Rome are 
holy, if they are the doctrines taught by Christ and his Apos- 
tles ; and if they are not, they are unholy. We cannot, there- 
fore, determine whether she has this mark, unless we compare 
her doctrines with those taught in the Scriptures. And the com- 
parison, let it be noted, must be quite extensive ; for a number of 
her doctrines may be true and holy, and yet, others may be of art 
opposite character. And, if she holds and teaches even one erro- 
neous doctrine, it is certain she is not infallible. 
i Now, either I can, by my private judgment, understand the 
Scriptures, so as to compare the doctrines of Rome with themy 
and determine certainly whether they are holy, or I cannot. If 
I can, it follows clearly, that I do not need an infallible interpre- 
ter of Scripture. If I cannot, then neither can I determine 
whether that church has the mark in question. In either case, 
the claims of Rome fall to the ground. But, when I propose to 
enter upon this comparison of her doctrines with those of Christ 
and the Apostles, I am reminded that I cannot understand the 
Scriptures ; that the utmost I can do, is to form a mere opinion 
which is far below the certainty of faith ! That is, Bishop Mil- 



CHURCH INFALLIBILITY. 23 

ner gives us certain marks by which the true church may be dis- 
tinguished from all others, and then tells us plainly, that we 
cannot ascertain whether his church has those marks ! How, 
then, I ask, are we to know whether the church of Rome is the 
true church, and whether she is infallible ? Certainly, her infalli- 
bility cannot be proved from Scripture. 

The position may strike many as a strange one ; but I venture to 
affirm, that no man can join the church of Rome without^ in the 
very act^ denying the truth of her principles. Do you ask, how this 
can be ? Suppose, then, I have heard a learned Roman Bishop 
attempt to prove the infallibility of his church. He has quoted 
many passages of Scripture, accompanied with his own com- 
ments ; I have heard him through, and I am convinced ; I 
believe that he has proved the infallibility of the church of 
Rome, and I propose to become a member of that church. 
Now, on what, let me ask, is my faith in the church of Rome 
based 1 Is it not based solely on my individual judgment of the 
strength and conclusiveness of his argument? I have heard his 
arguments, and my judgment is, that they prove the point. I 
have considered his expositions of the Scriptures he has quoted, 
and my judgment is, that he has interpreted them correctly. But 
this same Bishop who has so faithfully labored to convince me of 
the infallibility of his church, tells me, that according to the doc- 
trine of this same church, all the decisions of private judgment 
respecting the meaning of the Scriptures, are wholly uncertam ; 
that the utmost I can say is, such and such appears to me, at the 
present moment, to be the sense of the texts before me ; but per- 
haps, upon further investigation, and upon comparing these with 
other texts, I may alter my opinion. It is certain, he says, that 
I cannot make an act of faith upon my private judgment. If 
this doctrine be true, I can only say to the Bishop, the meaning 
of the texts you have quoted, appears to me to be as you say ; 
but, upon further investigation, I may change my opinion. — 
Will he receive me into his church on such a profession ? No. 
" How far short," says he, " is such mere opinion from the cer- 
tainty of faith ?" Well, if I say to him, " Sir, I am certain that 



24 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

your interpretation of the passages of Scripture you have quoted, 
is correct, and I can exercise faith upon ray private judgment ;" 
do I not, in making such a profession, contradict both him and 
his church ? And if I contradict his church, do I not deny her 
infalUbility T There is no escape ; the doctrines of the church 
of Rome are suicidal. No man can enter within her pale, with- 
out, in the very act, denying her infallibility. 

The conclusion appears to me unavoidable, that the infallibility 
of the church of Rome cannot be proved, either from tradition or 
from Scripture. In exalting her authority, she has destroyed the 
bridge on which we might pass from the regions of private inter- 
pretation into the city of the holy mother. Here I might leave 
the question, but I proceed to offer a second argument, viz. : 

II. The controversies in the Church of Rome^ on the subject of 
her infallihility^ prove her claims spurious. — She is certain that 
she has infallibility ; but whether that important gift is found in 
the Pope, the successor of St. Peter, she cannot inform us. Some 
of her bishops say, the Pope has it, when he speaks officially; 
others insist, that the bishops in general council have it, and that 
a council is above the Pope : and others still find it in the church. 
On this subject, Charles Butler, Esq., in his Book of the Churchy 
gives us the following information: '"In spiritual concerns, the 
Transalpine opinions ascribe to the Pope a superiority, and con- 
trolling power over the whole church, should she chance to oppose 
his decrees, and consequently, over a general council, her repre- 
sentative ; and the same superiority and controlling powder, even in 
the ordinary course of business, over the canons of the universal 
church. They describe the Pope as the fountain of all ecclesi- 
astical order, jurisdiction and dignity. * * * * They, fur- 
ther, ascribe to the Pope the extraordinary prerogative of personal 
infallibility', w^hen he undertakes to issue a solemn decision on 
any point of faith. The Cisalpines affirm, that in spirituals, the 
Pope is subject, in doctrine and discipline, to the church, and to a 
general council representing her; that he is subject to the canons 
of the church, &:c. They affirm, that a general comicil may, 
without, and even against, the Pope's consent, reform the church. 



CHURCH INFALLIBILITY. 25 

They deny his personal infallibility, and hold that he maybe depo- 
sed by the church, or a general council, for heresy or schism ; and 
they admit, that in an extreme case, when there is great division of 
opinion, an appeal lies from the Pope to a future general council."* 

Now let it be remarked, this is not a mere speculative question, 
but one of great practical importance. When the Pope speaks 
officially^ or ex cathedra^ do we hear the voice of Christ, whose 
vicar he professes to be ; and must we, therefore, yield implicit 
faith and obedience ? Or, do we hear the voice of a mere man, 
who may be in error ; and may we doubt or oppose his sentiments? 
Surely this is a question of the utmost importance. The bishops 
beyond the Alps — the Transalpines — say, when the Pope issues 
his decision in regard to doctrines or morals, we hear the voice of 
Christ, and therefore must believe and obey. The Cisalpine bish- 
ops say. No, it is the voice of a man^ who may be in error, who 
may even be deposed for heresy ; and therefore we are not to 
render to his decisions implicit faith and obedience. 

Roman Catholics talk fluently of the divisions among Protest- 
ants ; but can they refer to any one point on which Protestants 
differ, which is of greater importance than this? We can, at 
least, agree when and where Christ speaks to us, even if we some- 
times differ concerning the meaning of his language ; but the 
church of Rome cannot determine when he speaks. How, then, 
can she interpret his language? Some hear him through the 
Pope ; others do not there recognize his voice. 

Truly this is a singular controversy. Would Christ impart to 
any man the important gift of inspiration, that he might guide 
his church in the path of truth, and yet not let him know his 
own inspiration, or not enable him to satisfy his people on that 
point? When Moses was divinely appointed to lead Israel to the 
promised land, he not only knew his own qualifications, but was 
enabled to satisfy the people on that head. Now, in regard to 
the popes, one of two things is true, viz : either they do not know 
whether they are infallible or not ; or they cannot give to the 
church, the bishops, such evidence as will satisfy them. Why 

o *Let. X. 



26 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

have not the popes decided " this dispute, so long agitated in the 
schools," as the Bishop Trevern says it has been? If they knew 
they were not infaUible, why have they permitted so many bish- 
ops and people to believe and defend their infallibility ? If they 
knew themselves infallible, why have they allowed so many 
others to doubt and dispute it ? What are we to think of a man, 
who, knowing himself fallible, will yet permit those under his 
guidance to regard him as speaking under the immediate direc- 
tion of the Holy Spirit? Or, shall we say, the popes knew 
themselves infallible ; but Jesus Christ, though he imparted to 
them infallibility, has not given them the evidence to convince 
their bishops and people that they have it ? 

But what is still worse, the church, even in a general council, 
cannot settle this dispute. The Council of Trent, like other 
councils, was profoundly silent on the subject. Indeed, the ques- 
tion never can be determined ; for the church, we are told, cannot 
make new articles of faith. To the end of time, therefore, this 
great practical question must remain undetermined. Romanists, 
indeed, tell us, it is matter of opinion. The truth is, those points 
about wdiich the bishops of the church cannot agree, however 
important, they conclude to call opinions; and those on which 
they do agree, are dignified with a place amongst the doctrines ! 
But this play upon words, this distinction without a difference, is 
only a vain effort to conceal an insurmountable difficulty. 

But what if, at any time, the Pope and Council should differ ? 
Why, Bishop Trevern says: "But if ever it should happen, 
which God forbid, and which we Galileans think impossible, if it 
ever should happen, that the great number should separate from 
the head, it would then be necessary that one of the two parties 
should adopt the sentiments of the other, to preserve the church 
from schism, the greatest of all evils."* As the church cannot 
determine whether the Pope is infallible ; neither can she decide 
concerning the limits of his authority. One party, as we have 
proved by Butler, and could easily prove by others, contends that 
he is above the church, and above a general council. The other 
* Arnica. Discuss., vol. i, p. 178. 



CHURCH INFALLIBILITY. 27 

maintains, that he is inferior to a council, and may be deposed 
for schism or heresy, by a general council. And the Bishop can 
only say, that if there should ever be a division about this matter, 
one or the other party must yield its claims ! 

And stranger still, the church of Rome cannot determine, or 
certainly has not yet determined, to what extent the Pope has 
temporal power ^ or the right, when he thinks the good of religion 
demands it, to depose kings and absolve their subjects from their 
oath of allegiance. Butler says, ''the Tr^?imZpme divines attri- 
buted to the Pope a divine right to the exercise, indirect at least, 
of temporal power, for effecting a spiritual good ; and, in conse- 
quence of it, maintained, that the supreme power of every state 
was so far subject to the Pope, that when he deemed that the bad 
conduct of the sovereign rendered it essential to the good of the 
church, that he should reign no longer, the Pope was then author- 
ized, by his divine commission, to deprive him of his sovereign- 
ty, and absolve his subjects from their obligation of allegiance ; 
and that even, on ordinary occasions, he might enforce obedience 
to his spiritual legislation and jurisdiction, by civil penalties."* 
The Popes were not slow to avail themselves of the indefinite 
authority conferred on them by their office. The tremendous 
progress of their unrestrained ambition is recorded by Butler, in 
the following language : " From an humble fisherman, the Pope 
successively became owner of houses and lands, acquired the 
power of magistracy in Rome, and large territorial possessions in 
Italy, Dalmatia, Sicily, Sardinia, France, and Africa, and ulti- 
mately obtained the rank .and consequence of a great temporal 
prince. Here the Pope did not stop ; but claimed, by divine gift, 
a right to exercise supreme temporal power over all Christian 
sovereigns, when a great good of religion required it."t Bishop 
Milner says, "it is undeniable, that different popes, in former 
ages, have pronounced deposition against certain contemporary 
princes and great numbers of theologians have held (though not 
as a matter of faith) that they had a right to do so."J 

Now, either the popes knew that Christ had given them no 

* Book of Church, Let. x. f Ibid., Let. ix. X End of Con., Let. xlvi. 



28 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

such civil power as they claimed, or they did not. If they did 
not, they were amazingly ignorant of the plainest truths of the 
gospel they pretended to teach to the church, as well as of the 
nature and duties of the high office they professed to have receiv- 
ed from Christ. For, Mr. Butler says, " This claim was unfound- 
ed ; both the gospel and tradition declared against it, and it produced 
great evil."* And Bishop Milner says: "Even the incarnate 
Son of God, from whom he [the PopeJ derives the supremacy, 
which he possesses, did not claim, here on earth, any right of the 
above-mentioned kind: on the contrary, he positively declared, 
that his kingdom is not of this world !^^\ If then, the popes put 
forth those claims ignorantly^ how amazingly stupid they must 
have been ! It is an article of the Roman Catholic faith, says 
Butler, that to the pope belongs " the principal authority in de- 
fining articles of faith ;"t and yet he puts forth and exercises 
claims, as of divine gift, directly in the face of the plainest decla- 
rations of the Gospel ! Nay, he claims power which, even Mil- 
ner being judge, the Son of God himself did not claim, while on 
earth ! And more than this, he was sustained in this claim, says 
Milner, by "great numbers of theologians ;" and Cardinal Bellar- 
mine, one of the most eminent of the Romish theologians, is 
found amongst the number. And these are the men to whom 
the church and the world are expected to look, as the divinely 
authorized expounders of God's word ! ! ! 

But if the claims in question were not set forth by the popes ig- 
norantly — if they knew at the time, that Jesus Christ had given 
them no such power — what shall we say of their impious prostitu- 
tion of an office they professed to regard as the highest and most 
sacred on earth? In the name of Jesus they deposed sovereigns 
from those offices which God in his providence had given them ; 
and in the name of Jesus pretended to absolve subjects from their 
oath of allegiance. I can conceive of scarcely anything more 
impious. And if those theologians who defended those claims, 
were not stupidly ignorant, but did know they were defending 
falsehood, what shall we think of them ? Are these the men to 
* Book of Ch., Let. ix. f End of Con., Let. xlvi. t Book of Ch., Let. x 



CHURCH INFALLIBILITY. 29 

whose expositions of God's word we are expected to look up with 
reverence ? and to whose instructions we are required to commit 
our souls? 

But, above all, what shall we say of " holy mother church," 
as the church of Rome is called, in view of the fact, that to this 
day she has never reproved those unauthorized and impious 
claims of her popes, sustained by great numbers of her theolo- 
gians ? Did the church know that Christ had given the popes 
no such power as they claimed and exercised? If she did not, she 
was more ignorant than Dr. Milner and Mr. Butler, and was a 
miserable interpreter of Scripture. If she did, why was not her 
reproving voice heard? Mr. Butler says, both the gospel and 
tradition were against the claims set forth by the popes; the 
church pretends to be the only authorized expounder of both gos- 
pel and tradition ; and yet not one of her general councils has 
spoken against the impious claims so long set forth and exercised 
by them! Nay, even to this day, the pope is a temporal prince, 
exercising civil authority over a nation of people, making Avar 
and peace as other kings. And yet Christ, whose vicar he pre- 
tends to be, said, as Milner well remarks, that his kingdom was 
not of this world. 

When, some years since, the question was agitated in England 
concerning the pope's temporal power, certain questions relative 
to it were sent to several universities in Europe. They answered, 
that the pope has no such civil power as divers popes have claim- 
ed. But why were not these questions sent to the pope himself 'f 
Why did he not inform the world, whether he repudiated the 
unhallowed claims of his predecessors? Who does not know, 
that the opinions of universities are of no value whatever ? The 
pope is confessedly above them all ; and again and again has he 
declared, that he has the right to exercise civil power over the 
nations. And of what avail was the oath taken by English and 
Irish Romanists on the same subject ? Is the pope bound to re- 
gard it? 

Let me appeal to the reason and common sense of the audi- 
ence. Can you believe, that Jesus Christ appointed an office in 



30 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

his church of such unspeakable importance, and so capable of 
being abused to the incalculable injury of the church and the 
world, without clearly defining the kind and the limits of the 
power connected with it, and the qualifications of the officer who 
should fill it? Suppose the kind and the degree of power to be 
exercised by the president of these United States, as undetermined 
as that exercised by the pope, and the qualifications of the man 
to fill the office no better understood ; what would our constitution 
be worth? Will it be believed, that our Saviour was less wise 
than the framers of our civil government? 

Again — was there ever a question in the Christian church, 
whether the apostle Peter was inspired? Was the question ever 
agitated in the days of the Apostles, whether Peter had the right 
to exercise civil power? No such questions were ever agitated. 
If, then, the popes be his successors, how happens it, that in the 
church of Rome there has been so much disputing about their 
inspiration and their authority? 

Is a general council infallible ? Some Roman bishops answer 
affirmatively, and some negatively. We might safely conclude 
that they have no infallibility, so long as they are unable to find 
it. But the first question that arises here is, what is a general 
council? We want a clear definition of this important body. 
We desire an infallible definition, too ; for if it be fallible, it may 
be wrong, according to the reasoning of Roman writers; and, 
consequently, we cannot rely on it. Where, then, shall we ob- 
tain an infallible definition of a general council? We cannot get 
it from any council ; for if a council declare itself to be general 
or cBcumenical, we still desire evidence. Where shall we find 
it? Here we meet another puzzling difficulty, viz.: the New 
Testament says not a word about a general council. There is 
not even a distant allusion to such a body. This is quite as 
strange, if the doctrine of the church of Rome be true, as that 
the Constitution of the United States should say not a word 
about Congress, although it is to be the great legislative body 
of the nation! It is truly remarkable, that although the Apostles 
in their epistles, repeatedly warned the churches against false 



CHURCH INFALLIBILITY. 



teachers and religious errors; yet they never once directed 
them either to Peter^s chair, or to a general council. 

It is important to know what a general council is, and what 
proportion of those constituting it forms a quorum^ that business 
may be infallibly done. Bishop Trevern, though he gives us no 
definition or description of a general council, says — '' It is by ac- 
ceptation^ that we are convinced that a council is really oBcume- 
nical, and it is by acceptation equally that we know with cer- 
tainty that the pope has pronounced ex cathedra.''^ ^ The church 
or the bishops, we are told, must accept the decrees of a council, 
before we can certainly know, that it is (Ecumenical or general ; 
and they must accept the pope's decisions, before we can be sure 
that he has pronounced ex cathedra. Well, lohat proportion of 
of the bishops must accept the decisions of a council or pope, be- 
fore they are to be regarded as infallible? " The bishops," says 
he, ^' united in the same opinion, at least in a great majority J^\ 
These constitute the infallible judge. But the phrase — '^ a great 
majority" — is very indefinite. How great a majority must agree? 
Butler says — " When the general body, or a great majority of 
her [the church's] prelates, have assented to them [definitions and 
formulas of faith], whether by formal consent, or tacit assent, all 
are bound to acquiesce in them.":]: Here again all is indefinite. 
What does he mean by the general body or great majority? How 
great must the m.ajority be? Now suppose the question is asked, 
what is meant by the Congress of the United States, and the 
answer, that when the representatives of the people are called 
together, and '4he general body or great majority" are assembled, 
they can proceed to business ; and when the United States, " at 
least in a great majority," accepts their decisions, it is clear that 
the body is rightly called the Congress. Would not the state- 
ment appear ridiculous? Could such a body know when to 
proceed to business? 

But this is not the only difficulty involved in the doctrine of 
the infallibility of general councils. Their infallibility, if they 
have it, is altogether of a new kind. The only inspiration of 

* Arnica. Discuss., vol. i, p. 178. f Ibid., p. 169. X Book of Ch., Let. x 



32 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

which we read in the Scriptures is that of individuals. Moses 
was an inspired man, and so were Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and 
David, and Paul, and James, and Peter ; and the writings of each 
of these men Roman Catholics themselves regard as the word of 
God. We do not find in the Bible a single example of a body 
of men, each of whom was fallible, constituting an infallible 
body. Yet such is the character of Roman infallibility ; no one 
of the bishops pretends to be infallible, and yet the decrees of 
the council composed of these fallible men, we are told, are in- 
spired and infallible i To say nothing of the absurdity of the 
idea, the fact that in the Scriptures we read of no such inspira- 
tion, the fact that Roman infallibility is of a new kind^ is suffi- 
cient to render it more than suspicious. It evidently is not the 
genuine coin ; it has not on it the stamp of heaven. The suc- 
cessors of the Apostles should have apostolic infallibility. Since 
the church of Rome has it not, we are forced to the conclusion 
that she is but a blind guide. 

We have, in the Acts of the Apostles, an account of the first 
Christian council, which was an infallible council assembled to 
decide a great doctrinal question. Was it necessary to wait un- 
til it was ascertained whether the church would accept their de- 
crees, before it could be known whether they were infallibly cor- 
rect ? No — that council said — •' For it seemed good to the Holy 
Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these 
necessary things," &c. ; c. xv, 28. They knew they were under 
the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and their decision was final. 
There was no w^aiting, as in the church of Rome, for the accept- 
ance of the church. 

The truth is plain, that the infallibility of the church of Rome, 
if she is infallible, is wholly of a new kind, unlike anything of 
which we read in the sacred Scriptures. And since we find 
there no intimation, that after the days of the Apostles, the church 
was to have a new kind of inspiration, we are obliged to conclude 
that her claims to inspiration are false and deceptive. 

From the inconsistencies and contradictions of Rome, how 
pleasant to turn to the pure Word of God, " the lamp to our feet, 



CHURCH INFALLIBILITY. 



the light to our path." Truly, it is able "to make us wise unto 
salvation, through faith that is in Christ Jesus." Its glorious 
doctrines are set forth and illustrated with inimitable clearness 
and simplicity ; and its promises, " exceeding great and precious," 
scattered richly over its sacred pages, cheer the heart of the be- 
liever on his journey to a better world. " We all with open face, 
beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into 
the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the 
Lord." As "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the fir- 
mament showeth his handy work ;" so, in this blessed volume 
we behold, written "in fairer brighter lines," the infinite perfec- 
tions of our Heavenly Father, and the glorious plan of salvation 
which he has revealed. 

This subject will be resumed in the next Lecture. 



SCRIPTURE THE ONLY GUIDE. 35 



LECTURE II. 

Acts, xvii, 11, 12. " These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, 
in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched 
the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so." — " Therefore many 
of them believed : also of honorable women which were Greeks, and of 
men, not a few." 

Paul and Silas, as ambassadors of Christ, had visited Thes- 
salonica, and, three successive Sabbaths, had entered the syna- 
gogue and reasoned with the Jews " out of the Scriptures," prov- 
ing that Jesus was the Christ. The unbelieving Jews, in con- 
nection with certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, excited a 
great commotion in the city. The lives of Paul and Silas being 
endangered, the brethren sent them to Berea, where, entering the 
synagogue, they preached the gospel. The Bereans, more noble 
than the Thessalonians, heard them with deep interest, and 
searched the Scriptures daily, whether their doctrines were true. 
The result was, that many of them believed. From these facts 
the following important principles are deduced : 

I. That the Scriptures were the only infallible guide in faith 
und practice, known either to the Apostles or the Berean Jews. 
The Apostles, we are told. " reasoned out of the Scriptures." 
The Bereans were not yet certain that their doctrines were true. 
How did they satisfy their minds on this subject ? Not by an 
appeal to tradition, or to the high priest, or to the scribes and 
Pharisees ; but simply to the Scriptures. They certainly knew 
of no other source whence they could obtain certain information 
concerning the truth of the doctrines preached ; and they needed 
no other. 

II. The second principle deducible from the facts stated, is 
that by searching the Scriptures the people can ascertain theii 
meaning, and can exercise true faith, without the aid of church 



36 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

interpretation. The Bereans thus tested the truth of the Apos- 
tles' doctrines ; and the result was, '' many among them believed." 
Therefore, the doctrine of Komanists is not true, that those who 
search the Scriptures for themselves, •' cannot make an act of 
faith." 

III. To test by the Scriptures, the truth of the doctrines taught 
by professed ministers of Christj is both a praiseworthy, and a 
safe course. " These were more noble than those of Thessalo- 
nica." Such is the commendation bestowed by the Holy Spirit 
on those who thus tested the doctrines, even of inspired men ; 
although they could prove their divine mission by miracles. If 
it was both lawful and highly commendable in the Bereans to do 
so, and if they could correctly interpret the Scriptures of the Old 
Testament, is it not equally commendable in Christians now, and 
can they not, with the additional light of the New Testament, 
much more easily and certainly come to a knowledge of the 
truth ? What, then, are we to think of the Roman clergy, who, 
while they claim to be the legitimate successors of the Apostles, 
shrink from the test to which they so cheerfully submitted, and 
condemn the people for doing precisely that which they so highly 
commended ? 

But, says Bishop Milner, in the effort to escape these conclu- 
sions, " They [the Bereans] searched the ancient prophecies to 
verify that the Messiah was to be born at such a time, and in such 
a place, and that his life and his death were to be marked by such 
and such circumstances."* Suppose we admit, though there is 
not a particle of evidence of it, that they confined their investiga- 
tions to the ancient prophecies ; it follows inevitably, that a part 
at least, of the prophecies of Scripture can, and must be under- 
stood, by the exercise of 'private judgment. Yet this same 
bishop, in order to prove that the whole business of interpreting 
the Scriptures belongs exclusively to the church, triumphandy 
quotes the passage, " No prophecy of Scripture is of any private 
interpretation." That is, he quotes a passage of Scripture to prove 
that individuals have no right to attempt to understand for them 

* End of Con., Letter xii. 



i 



CHURCH INFALLIBILITY. 37 

selves any part of the Scriptures, especially the prophecies, and 
then is compelled to acknowledge, that the Bereans did examine 
for themselves, even the ancient jjrophecies, did correctly under- 
stand them, and were commended by God for so doing ! It is 
clear, therefore, that he grossly perverts the passage quoted. 
Peter was speaking, not of the exposition, but of the inspiration 
of the Scriptures. The Prophets, he says, are the interpreters 
of God's will to man ; not the setters forth of their individual 
notio7iSj their own private opinions — " for holy men spake of old 
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Consequently, the 
prophecies, being given by inspiration, are " a more sure word, 
unto which," says Peter, " ye do well that ye take heed, as to a 
light that shineth in a dark place."* So far from forbidding an 
attempt on the part of the people to understand the writings of 
the Prophets, as being too obscure, he exhorts them to take heed 
to them, as a light shining in the midst of darkness. 

Thus we find the first great doctrine of the Reformation, that 
the Scriptures are the only infallible guide in faith and practice, 
and that individuals can search and understand their sacred teach- 
ings, fully sustained. Let us further pursue this investigation — 
for it is one in which every human being is deeply, eternally 
interested. 

I have offered two general arguments, clearly disproving the 
infallibility of the church of Rome, viz.: L There is no evidence 
in favor of her claims, either from tradition or from Scripture. 
Not from tradition, because if there be traditions of divine autho- 
rity, they are confessedly in the keeping of the church ; and their 
authority depends upon her infallibility. Consequently, we must 
find the true church, and be satisfied of her infallibility, before 
we can receive her traditions. Not from Scripture, because 
that also, we are assured, is in the keeping of the church ; so 
that we cannot know the Bible to be the Word of God, or under- 
stand its meaning, except as we rely upon the infallible church. 
Consequently, we must find the church, and be assured that she 
is infallible, before we can receive or understand the Scriptures. 

* 2 Peter i, 19. 



33 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

II. The controversies in the church of Rome, concerning her 
infallibility — whether the pope is infallible, and what is the kind 
and the extent of his authority ; whether a general council is 
infallible; what is a general council, &c. — these controversies 
prove, that the church of Rome has not the gift of infallibility ; 
that the inspiration which she claims, not being that of indi- 
viduals, but of masses of men, is wholly unlike the inspiration 
of which we read in the Bible, and wholly unlike that of the 
first Christian council at Jerusalem. 

I now proceed to present some additional arguments on this 
subject. 

III. My third general argument against the infallibility of the 
church of Rome, is founded on the fact, that her infallibility, as 
claimed, does 7iot extend far enough. It is not, in this respect, 
such infallibility as we read of in the Scriptures, nor such as the 
interests of the church require. In the first place, a very large 
proportion of Scripture, it is admitted, she cannot expound. It is 
a fact, that she has given no interpretation of the larger portion 
of the Bible. The reason why she has not, is given by Bishop 
Milner, " She does not dictate an exposition of the whole Bible, 
because she has no tradition concerning a very great proportion of 
it."* The church of Rome claims to be authorized and quali- 
fied by Jesus Christ to interpret his Word ; she forbids all indi- 
viduals to attempt what she calls private interpretation ; and yet 
it is acknowledged, that she is unable to give any interpretation 
of a very large proportion of it. She cannot go beyond her tra- 
ditions, and she has no tradition concerning that large portion of 
divine Revelation. Does not the Apostle Paul say, "All Scrip- 
ture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for 
instruction in righteousness ; that the man of God may be per- 
fect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works?" But how can 
all of it be profitable, if a very large proportion cannot be under- 
stood ? This large portion of divine Revelation, it would seem, 
must for ever remain a dead letter. The church cannot explain it, 
and she forbids individuals to attempt it. Can any rational mind 

* End of Con,, Let. xii. 



CHURCH INFALLIBILITY. 39 

believe, that Christ would have appointed and qualified his church, 
or her bishops, to interpret his Revelation to men, and yet have left 
her incapable of interpreting a very large proportion of it, which 
consequently must remain wholly useless? What would be 
thought of the Supreme Court of the United States, if, whilst 
claiming to be the only authorized interpreters of the Constitution, 
the judges should declare themselves unable to expound a very 
great proportion of it? Were the Apostles, whose legitimate 
successors the Roman bishops profess to be, confined in their 
expositions of Scripture, to tradition ? Was it ever intimated, 
that they could not explain any part of it, because they had no 
tradition concerning it ? No. The church of Rome pretends to 
an inspiration of a neio kind, wholly inadequate to the discharge 
of those most important duties to which she professes to have 
been appointed. Her infallibility, therefore, is spurious, and her 
claims false. 

Again : her infallibility, we are told, extends only to doctrines 
and morals^ but not to discipline and opinions ; and yet under 
these last heads are included matters most momentous to the inte- 
rests of the church and the world. Bishop Hughes, of New 
York, says, "Besides doctrines, articles of faith, and morals, 
which are immutable, there is discipline, for which infallibility is 
neither claimed, nor necessary. * * * * There are, be- 
sides doctrine and discipline, opinions ; but they are not about the 
divinity of Christ, or the real presence. They are on questions 
concerning which no positive revelation has been given by the 
Saviour, or preached by the Apostles."* 

For her discipline, we are here told, the church does not claim 
infallibility. Let us look at some important matters of discipline, 
that we may determine whether her infallibility is apostolical. 

The law by which she forbids the laity, the people, to receive 
the wine in the Lord's supper, is a matter, not of doctrine, but of 
discipline. Milner asserts, that the Catholic church, believing in 
the doctrine of transubstantiation, and "that the whole body, 
blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ equally subsist under each 

* Breckenridge and Hughes' Written Discussion, No. v. 



40 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

of the species of bread and wine, regarded it as a mere matter 
of discipline^ which of them was to be received in the holy sacra- 
ment."* Now it is an admitted fact, that our Saviour, when he 
instituted this sacrament, did use both bread and wine. The 
Council of Trent say — ^^ For although Christ the Lord did in the 
last supper institute this venerable sacrament of the eucharist in 
the species of bread and wine, and thus delivered it to the Apostles, 
yet it does not thence follow that all the faithful in Christ are 
bound by divine statute to receive both kinds." It must also 
be admitted, that Paul regarded both bread and wine as necessary 
to the sacrament ; for he said, ^' As often as ye eat this bread and 
drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. But 
let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and 
drink of that cup.^^i Now it is certain, that our Lord had the 
best reasons for instituting this sacrament as he did, for using 
wine as well as bread ; nor did he give the slightest intimation, 
that he intended any change in future. Even Roman writers 
acknowledge, that it is a privilege to receive the wine as well as 
the bread. " The French kings," says Milner, ^^ since the reign 
of Philip, have had the privilege of receiving under both kinds, 
at their coronation and at their death."J If our Saviour had good 
reasons, in instituting this sacrament, for using both bread and 
wine, how happens it, that the church of Rome has good reasons 
for withholding the cup? And if it be a privilege to partake of 
both kinds, by what authority do the Roman bishops deprive 
Christ's disciples of a privilege by him granted, and forbid any 
but the clergy to do what he permitted and commanded all to do'? 
In her discipline the church of Rome, it is admitted, is not in- 
fallible, and consequently she may err ; and yet she ventures, as 
a matter of discipline, to change one of the most important ordi- 
nances instituted by our Saviour! — to forbid his people to partake 
of that ordinance as instituted by him!! Moreover, although it 
is acknowledged she may err in her discipline, she anathematizes 
every man who ventures to say, she has erred I In the second 
canon of the Council of Trent, on communion in one kind, &.c., 
* End of Con., Let. xxxix. 1 1 Cor, xl, 26, 28. t End of Con., Let. xxxix. 



CHURCH INFALLIBILITY. 41 

we find the following language: "Whoever shall affirm, that the 
holy Catholic church had not just grounds and reasons for re- 
stricting the laity and non-officiating clergy to communion in the 
species of bread only, or that she hath erred therein, let him be 
accursed." The boldness of her impiety is astonishing. She 
first ventures to change one of the ordinances instituted by infi- 
nite wisdom, admitting that, as it is a matter of discipline, she 
may be in error; and then anathematizes any one who ventures 
to say, she has erred ! The truth is, the change was made in 
order to sustain the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation. For, 
if the doctrine of Rome be true, there is no reason why wine 
should have been used at all, since, after the change, it is de- 
clared to be precisely the same as the bread ! Dr. Milner ad- 
mits, that if Protestants understand the ordinance aright, both 
bread and wine are necessary. " I do not deny," says he, " that 
in the mere figurative system, there may be some reason for re- 
ceiving the liquid as well as the solid substance, since the former 
may appear to represent more aptly the blood, and the latter the 
body ; but to Catholics, who possess the reality of them both, 
the species or outward appearance is no more than a matter of 
changeable discipline."* This is truly an important concession. 
It amounts to this : if the Protestant doctrine be true, the wisdom 
of Christ is seen in appointing wine as well as bread to be used ; 
but if Romanists are right, there was no propriety in the use of 
both elements. Truly the church that ventures thus boldly to 
change divine institutions, and to impugn the wisdom of the 
Head of the Church, ought to possess the highest degree of in- 
fallibility, not only in doctrine, but in discipline ! 

2. The law forbidding the clergy to marry, is also a matfer of 
discipline. Bishop Purcell, in reply to Alexander Campbell, 
says, "Now, in the first place, celibacy is no part of Catholic 
doctrine, at all. It is not an article of faith. The pope could, 
to-morrow, change that law, and allow the Roman Catholic 
clergy, as the Greek priests do, to marry. * * * * I glory in 
this feature of our discipline,'*^ \ Here, again, the discipline of 

* End of Con., Let. xxxix. t Purcell and Campbell's Debate, p. 191. 

2* 



42 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

Rome is directly in the face of the Scriptures. It is not, and 
cannot be denied, that the Apostle Peter, when chosen by Christ, 
had a wife, and that Paul the Apostle, WTiting under divine inspi- 
ration, did expressly mention marriage as lawful and honorable 
in the clergy. In 1 Tim. iii, 2, 4, we read as follows (Doway 
Bible) : " It behoveth, therefore, a bishop to be blameless, the hus- 
band of one wife — one that ruleth well his own house, having his 
children in subjection with all chastity." Again, Tit. i, 6: "If 
any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful 
children," &c. In these passages, the Apostle is describing the 
character of those who might be ordained as bishops. Does 
he require them to be unmarried? Does he not expressly men- 
tion married men as suitable persons to fill the office ? Whence, 
then, I ask, has the church of Rome derived her authority for 
excluding all men from the Christian ministry, who do not 
choose to live a life of celibacy? By what right does she forbid 
ministers of the gospel to do what the Holy Spirit expressly per- 
mitted them to do ? Who gave her authority to depose or ex- 
clude men from the ministry, simply because they possess pre- 
cisely the character described by the inspired Paul, as suitable for 
that office? 

This is not all, nor the worst. The church of Rome not only 
forbids what God expressly permits, and excludes men from the 
ministry for doing what he directly approves, but she undertakes 
to nullify one of his institutions in the face of his express prohi- 
bition ! Our Saviour said of the husband and wife — " They are 
no more twain, but one flesh. What, therefore; God hath joined 
together, let not man 'put asunder,^^* In the face of this solemn 
prohibition the pope of Rome does put asunder husbands and 
wives. If a Protestant minister becomes a convert to the church 
of Rome, and desires to enter her ministry, he cannot do so, until 
he has made himself guilty of putting away his wife, which 
crime the pope converts into a virtue ! More than one case of 
this kind has recently occurred. Episcopal clergymen have 
joined the church of Rome, put away their wives in order to 
* Matth. xix, 6. 



CELIBACY OF THE PRIESTHOOD. 43 

assume the priestly office, and, as Roman papers inform us, one 
of them administered the communion to his former wife and 
daughter ! 

Peter, as Bishop Purcell is constrained to acknowledge, had a 
wife ; but when pressed with this fact by Mr. Campbell, he re- 
plied — " My friend says, that Peter was married ; but I defy him 
to prove that he retained his wife after he became a bishop."* 
What ! we cannot prove that Peter did not, in order to be a good 
bishop, do what Jesus Christ expressly forbade any man to do ! 
Let the bishop, if he can, produce the slightest proof, that Peter 
was ever guilty of the crime of putting away his wife. We 
prove, and he admits, that Peter, when chosen to be an apostle, 
had a wife; and we prove that, long afterwards, Paul, when 
pointing out the qualifications of a bishop, mentioned marriage 
as lawful and honorable. It is for the bishop to prove, that Peter 
put away his wife. Let him try. 

But the bishop glories in this feature of Rome's discipline. 
"Death," exclaims he, "before dishonor, to a virginal priest- 
hood."! That is, the bishop would sooner die, than pollute and 
dishonor himself and his office as the Holy Spirit expressly per- 
mitted primitive bishops to do ! What a charge does he venture 
to bring against God ! — that he expressly permitted the bishops 
of his church to dishonor themselves and their ministry in a way 
and to a degree to which death itself were to be preferred 1 
Verily, when men pretend to be purer than God requires them to 
be, there is rottenness at the heart. When the Jews were most 
zealous in cleansing the outside of the cup and the platter, going 
through their self-appointed ablutions, Jesus Christ compared 
them to " whited sepulchres." 

I must pause here long enough to give you, my friends, a 
glance at a portion of the boasted "virginal priesthood," as they 
are described by Rev. Joseph Reeve, a Roman clergyman, in his 
History of the Church — ^a work patronized by Bishops Hughes, 
of New York, and Kenrick, of Philadelphia. He says — " (A. 
D. 1074) — Simony and incontinence had struck deep root among 

* Purcell and Campbell's Debate, p. 147. f Ibid., p. 191. 



44 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

the clergy of England, Italy, Germany, and France. The evil 
began under those unworthy popes who so shamefully disgraced 
the tiara by their immoral conduct in the tenth century; the 
scandal spread, and had now continued so long, that the inferior 
clergy pleaded custom for their irregularities. Many even of 
the bishops were equally unfaithful to their vow, and with greater 
guilt. Hence, the corrupt laity, being under no apprehension of a 
reproof from men as deeply immersed in vice as they, gave 
free scope to their passions. To stem the torrent of so general a 
licentiousness, Avhich then deluged the Christian world, required 
the zeal and fortitude of an apostle."* Such was the character of 
the "virginal priesthood" of the ^^holy mother church," during 
several successive generations. Such is their character, as drawn 
by a friendly hand — an ardent advocate of the purity and infal- 
libility of his church. If such a man felt constrained to draw 
such a picture of the church, what should we see, could it be 
drawn by an impartial hand? Amongst Protestant ministers 
there have been men of corrupt principles and licentious habits ; 
but so soon as discovered, they have been deposed from the min- 
istry. But never could it be said, with even a shadow of truth, 
that the Protestant churches were '' dehiged " with the sin of 
licentiousness. Suppose those popes had been as Peter, whose 
chair they pretended to fill, and the clergy had had each his own 
wife, would this most disgraceful state of things have existed ? 

But the unnatural law forbidding the clergy to marry, we are 
told, is a mere matter of discipline, which the pope could at once 
change. In her discipline the church is confessedly fallible, and 
may err ; yet she and her popes boldly venture upon a disci- 
pline directly contrary to that of Christ and his Apostles ! What 
can we think of such infallibility ? Rather, what shall we think 
of such daring presumption? 

3. Once more, the law forbidding the laity to possess or read 

the Scriptures, is a matter of discipline. This law, as enacted by 

the Council of Trent, or by a committee by them appointed, and 

sanctioned by the pope, is as follows : " Inasmuch as it is mani- 

* Reeve's Hist, of the Church, vol. i, p. 515. 



PROHIBITING THE SCRIPTURES. 45 



lest, from experience, that if the Holy Bible, translated into the 
vulgar tongue, be indiscriminately allowed to every one, the 
temerity of men will cause more evil than good to arise from it, 
it is, on this point, referred to the judgment of the bishops, or 
inquisitors, who may, by the advice of the priest or confessor, 
permit the reading of the Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue, 
by Catholic authors, to those persons whose faith and piety, they 
apprehend, will be augmented, and not injured by it ; and this per- 
mission they must have in writing. But if any one shall have the 
presumption to read or possess it without such written permission, 
he shall not receive absolution until he have first delivered up 
such Bible to the ordinary. Booksellers, however, who shall sell, 
or otherwise dispose of Bibles in the vulgar tongue, to any person 
not having such permission, shall forfeit the value of the books, 
to be applied by the bishop to some pious use ; and be subjected 
by the bishop to such other penalties as the bishop shall judge 
proper, according to the quality of the offense. But regulars 
shall neither read nor purchase such Bibles, without a special 
license from their superiors."* 

Such is the law enacted by Rome to prevent the people from 
reading, not a Protestant translation, but even a Roman Catholic 
translation of the Holy Scriptures. This law, too, like those 
already noticed, is directly in the face of the command of Christ, 
" Search the Scriptures." It proposes to punish men for having 
'Uhe presumption^^ to do that which God highly commended in 
the Bereans ! Yet it is, we are told, a matter merely of fallible 
discipline! Still those who venture to disregard it are to be 
visited with pains and penalties, temporal and spiritual ! I re- 
peat the remark — the church that thus ventures to change 
divine institutions and annul divine laws, ought to possess the 
highest degree of infallibility, and to be able to give overwhelm- 
ing evidence that she has it ! 

Is the discipline of the church of Christ, involving matters 
such as those just enumerated, so unimportant that he would 
withhold his divine guidance in reference to it, which he 

* Index of Prohibited Books. 



46 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

granted in reference to doctrines? Were the Apostles fallible in 
the discipline they exercised? When Paul directed the Corin- 
thian church to excommunicate an incestuous man, was he not 
infallible ? When he directed Timothy and Titus to ordain 
married men as bishops, did he not write by inspiration ? When 
Luke commended the Bereans for searching the Scriptures, and 
thus testing the truth of the doctrines of the Apostles, was he not 
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit ? Yet the bishops of 
Rome, the pretended successors of the Apostles, are confessedly 
fallible in discipline ! And yet, fallible as they are, they alter 
divine institutions and annul divine precepts! Verily, their 
inspiration is not from above. 

But the church of Rome has opinions, too ; and these, we are 
informed, relate to matters concerning which God has given no 
clear revelation. Infallibility is not, therefore, claimed for opi- 
nions. But under the head of opinions, Roman bishops in this, 
country place some things of incalculable importance — things in- 
volving great moral principles — things involving even the lives of 
men ! Under this head, as we have seen, is placed the question, 
whether the Pope is infallible, and the question whether he has 
temporal power. Under this head, too, are placed all the terrible 
persecutions of the church of Rome. This is clear from the 
following language of bishop Hughes, in his oral debate with Dr. 
J. Breckenridge ; " There is no difficulty in admitting that the 
Waldenses, as well as the Albigenses were persecuted by the 
Catholics. This is not the question. But the question is, did 
Catholics ever persecute by virtue of any tenet of faith or morals, 
held by them as having been revealed by Almighty God? I 
answer boldly, never." * Catholics, he acknowledges, have 
persecuted ; but then they did not persecute doctrinally — they 
only persecuted by virtue of opinion ! Happy distinction ! 
But, after all, this defense makes the matter worse. If they had 
snicerely behoved that God required them to persecute, this 
faith, though erroneous, would have been, at least, a palliation 
of the crime. But, it seems, they had no such faith ; and yet 

* Breckenridge and Hughes' Oral Debate, p. 201 



PERSECUTION AUTHORIZED. 47 

they did persecute multitudes unto the death ! God had given 
no revelation on the subject ; and yet their opiidon was, that they 
ought to kill incorrigible heretics ! 

This mischievous opinion has been held and acted upon, not 
only by bishops, and popes, but by general councils. The Fourth 
General Council of Lateran, assembled in Rome, A. D. 1215, 
passed a document from which I will read a brief extract. 

" We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy extolling 
itself against the holy, orthodox. Catholic faith, which we before 
expounded, condemning all heretics, by whatsoever names called, 
having indeed different faces, but having their tails bound together 
by a common agreement in falsehood, one with another. And 
being condemned, let them be left to the secular powers present, 
or to their bailiffs, to be punished with due animadversion; if 
clergymen, let them be first degraded from their orders, so that 
the goods of persons thus condemned, if of the laity, may be 
confiscated ; if of the clergy, they may be devoted to the churches 
from which they have received their stipends. * * * * 
And let the secular powers be warned and induced, and if need 
be, condemned by ecclesiastical censures, what offices soever they 
are in ; that as they desire to be reputed and taken for believers, 
so they publicly take an oath for the defense of the faith, that 
they will study in good earnest to exterminate to their utmost 
power, from the land subject to their jurisdiction, all heretics, 
devoted by the church ; so that every one that is henceforth 
taken unto any power, either spiritual or temporal, shall be bound 
to confirm this chapter by an oath. But if the temporal lord, 
required and warned by the church, shall neglect to purge his ter- 
ritory of this heretical filth, let him, by the metropolitan and the 
provincial bishops, be tied by the bond of excommunication ; and 
if he scorn to satisfy within a year, let that be signified to the 
pope, that he may denounce his vassals thenceforth absolved from 
his fidelity, and may expose his country to be seized by Catho- 
lics, who, exterminating the heretics, may 'possess it without any 
contradiction, and may keep it in the purity of the faith ; saving 
the right of the principal lord, so be it he himself put no obstacle 



48 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

thereto, nor impose any impediment ; the same law, notwithstand- 
ing, being kept about them that have no principal lords. And 
those Catholics, that taking the badge of the cross, shall gird them- 
selves for the extermination of heretics, shall enjoy that indul- 
gence, and be fortified with that holy privilege, which is granted 
to those that go to the help of the Holy Land." 

Heretics, you observe, are excommunicated and anathematized. 
Then the secular powers are commanded to exterminate them, 
"as they desire to be reputed and taken for believers." If they 
do not obey, they are to be excommunicated and deposed, their 
subjects absolved from their oath of allegiance, and their lands to 
be seized by Catholics. Those who should go about this bloody 
work zealously, were to wear the badge of the cross and have grant- 
ed to them indulgences, such as were granted to the crusaders. 
-: This terriffic document was read by Dr. Breckendrige in the 
oral debate with Bishop Hughes. What was the bishop's reply ? 
He would not, he said, vindicate the measure [the persecution], 
but stated the facts, and circumstances. " The Fourth General 
Council of Lateran," said he, " was assembled especially for the 
purpose of condemning the error of the Albigentian heresy. In 
this capacity it was infallible — because, as the representative or- 
gan of the church, it was discharging the duty for which the 
church was divinely instituted — viz. : teaching all truth, and 
consequently, condemning all error. But when they pass from 
the definitions of doctrines to the enactments of civil or bodily 
penalties, their decisions are sustained by no promise of infallibil- 
ity, and by no authority derived from God, for that purpose. 
Whatever right they may have derived from other sources or 
circumstances, to inflict civil punishment, it is certain that they 
have derived none from their vocation to the holy ministry or the 
imposition of hands." Again he asserts, '^ that the law for their 
suppression did not even pretend to rest for its authority on any 
doctrine of the Catholic church, but upon the reward of confiscat- 
ed lands and promised* indulgences."* That is, the holjj infalli- 
ble council, did its appropriate work in condemning heresy ; and 
*Oral Debate, pp. 71, 117, 118, J27. 



PERSECUTION AUTHORIZED. 49 

then, turning aside from the duties of their office, as ministers of 
Christ, and therefore having no claim to infallibility, they passed 
a most bloody law, requiring civil rulers to murder and extermi- 
nate heretics from their several countries, prostituting their sacred 
office, and the keys of the kingdom by threatening with excom^ 
munication, deposition, and confiscation of lands, those who should 
refuse to do the bloody work, and offering indulgences — those 
"heavenly treasures" — to those Roman Catholics who should 
undertake the work in good earnest ! ! ! It was only the opinion 
of the council that it was the duty of the civil magistrate to exter- 
minate heretics ! It was an opinion, however, which civil rulers 
must adopt and act upon, or meet the thunders of the Vatican and 
forfeit their crowns ! They must obey the bloody decree, or be 
treated as heretics. 

Now, either the council knew, as well as Bishop Hughes, that 
they had no right to pass such laws ; or they did .not. If they 
did not, how shall we accou-nt for the fact, that an infallible coun- 
cil of bishops, legitimate successors of the Apostles, were so 
astonishingly ignorant of the appropriate duties of their office ? 
Can we believe men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who 
have not yet learned the duties of their office ? who are so grossly 
Ignorant as to believe themselves authorized to require civil 
rulers to murder those they choose to regard as heretics, and who 
even encourage them to do the work' zealously, by the offer of 
plenary indulgences ? If they did know that they had no right to 
pass such laws, what shall we think of their bold impiety, and of 
the shameful prostitution of their office, as ministers of the " Prince 
of Peace," who came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them? 

But they persecuted heretics, says Bishop Hughes, not dontrin- 
alli/j but by virtue of their opinion, admitted to be fallible. Truly, 
it was a small matter to the poor Waldenses and Albigenses, 
whether technically their extermination was matter of doctrine, of 
opinion, or of discipline. The result was the same to them ; nor 
will Jesuitical technicalities change the character of the crime of 
their persecutors. 

Cardinal Bellarmine, one of the most celebrated theologians 



50 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

of the church of Rome, maintains (as an opinion, Bishop 
Hughes says) that the civil powers ought to punish incorrigible 
heretics by death. I give a quotation from his writings, as trans- 
lated by the Bishop. " We, therefore, shall briefly show, that in- 
corrigible heretics, and especially those who have relapsed, may 
and ought to be cast out from the church, and be punished by 
the secular powers, with temporal punishment, and with death 
itself"* The Bishop further says: " Every instance adduced by 
Bellarmine of this, is an instance by the authority of the state 
or by some emperor; but inasmuch as the civil rulers, who 
made and executed these laivs against heretics, were Catholics, and 
the church had ' cast those heretics out,' he speaks of it as if the 
church itself had executed the laws."t Bellarmine attempted to 
prove his persecuting tenet — 1st, "from the Scriptures;" 2d, "from 
the opinions and laws of the emporers, which the church has 
always approved ;" 3d, "by the laws of the church." You have 
just heard Bishop Hughes' explanation of these arguments. He 
admits that Bellarmine speaks as if the church itself had execut- 
ed these laws. Yes, and Bellarmine was right. Pilate had 
Jesus crucified ; but he did it at the instigation and demand of 
the Jews. The civil rulers killed heretics; but they were 
"Catholics," and they did it in obedience to "holy mother 
church." And as the Jews were charged with the crucifixion of 
Christ, so is the church of Rome justly chargeable with all the 
blood of pretended heretics, ever shed by the civil power. Bel- 
larmine considered the church answerable for it; and he justified 
her. Bishop Hughes does not venture, in this land of liberty, to 
justify her ; and therefore he either charges the civil rulers with 
it, or makes the vain effort to defend her by placing her persecu- 
tions under the head of opinions. 

The Inquisition, that most cruel, and most horrid of all institu- 
tions ever known in this ungodly world, was established, and 
has ever been sustained by popes. Of the multitudes who have 
perished in its dungeons, by its tortures, and at its autos da fe, we 
shall have no correct history till the day of judgment shall fully 
* Oral Debate, p. 220. f Ibid. 



PERSECUTION AUTHORIZED. 51 

reveal the works of darkness. This institution, driven from all 
other countries, as Bishop Hughes says, is yet cherished in 
Rome. Says he " Now the fact is, and it argues great ignorance 
not to know it, that, at this day, out of the city of Rome the Inqui- 
sition does not exist, either in fact or in name — either civilly or 
ecclesiastically, in any country under the sun."* In the very 
center of Catholicity, and under the immediate protection of the 
pretended vicar of Christ, this most cruel and detestable institution 
still finds " a local habitation, and a name." But the Inquisition, 
so much cherished at Rome, Bishop Hughes says, does not con- 
stitute " any part of our religion ! !" But what are we to think of a 
religion, claiming to be inculcated by a body of men under the 
immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit, which yet permits and 
influences that very body to establish and perpetuate such an 
institution ? But we pass this for the present. 

The church of Rome, we are to believe, is infallible in doctrines, 
and in morals, and the authorized interpreter of the Bible. Now, 
the Bible says : " Thou shalt not kill." The question then arise. 
— is it right, is it the duty of civil rulers to kill men, simply be- 
cause their religious faith differs from that of the church ? We 
turn to the infallible interpreter for an answer. She tells us, 
through her Bishop Hughes, that she does not know ; at least, 
she has no faith^ no doctrinal belief on this subject; that it was 
the opinion of Cardinal Bellarmine, Peter Dens, and other stand- 
ard writers, that the civil rulers were bound to kill incorrigible 
heretics ; that the Fourth General Council of Lateran thought so 
too, and therefore commanded them in the name of Christ, and 
under threat of severe punishment, forthwith to exterminate all 
such ; but the church has no doctrine^ no faith^ on the subject. 
It is all matter of opinion ! Now, does not every man of common 
sense see, that this is a great question of morah ? — a question to 
be determined by the correct exposition of God's word ? And 
are we to be told, that God has given no clear revelation on this 
subject ; and that, therefore, the church leaves it as a matter of 
opinion ? If there is no law of God on this point, then it cannot 
Hughes and Breck. Oral Debate, p. 170. 



52 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

be a sin to kill heretics ; for '' where there is no law, there is no 
transgression." And since the people, when left to opinion, 
must form the best opinion they can ; will they not most proba- 
bly adopt the opinion of the General Council of Lateran, and of 
Cardinal Bellarmine ? Will they not do this the more certainly, 
when they see that the kingdom of heaven was closed against 
those in former days, who refused to adopt it? However this 
may be, it is an admitted fact, that there is nothing in the religion, 
the doctrines, and morals, of the church of Rome, which forbids 
the most bloody persecutions ! A pope and a general council may 
command civil rulers to exterminate heretics, without rejecting 
any article of their religion, or even creating a single doubt con- 
cerning their divine inspiration ! ! ! What a system is this to 
claim as its author the Prince of Peace, and his inspired Apostles ! 
Suppose Paul, and Peter, and James, and John, had exhorted and 
commanded civil rulers to exterminate heretics by fire and sword ; 
or suppose the question asked them, whether it is right, under 
any circumstances, to kill men, because they do not believe as the 
church believes ; and suppose they had said, they could not give 
an answer ; — that it was a matter concerning which God had 
given no clear revelation — consequently a mere matter o{ opinion; 
would any sane man have admitted their claim to inspiration ? 
5 The fact is, the Roman clergy in this country, not daring 
openly to defend religious intolerance, place the horrid persecutions 
of the church — which involve fundamental principles of morals 
— under the head of opinions^ only as an expedient to save her 
infallibility. They stand, therefore, in the singularly absurd atti- 
tude of maintaining, that men may be under the infallible guid- 
ance of the Holy Spirit, and may yet in the name of Jesus Christ 
encourage and require the most horrid cruelty. 

Is it not perfectly clear, that the infallibility claimed for the 
church of Rome, does not extend far enough ; that it is wholly 
unlike that of the inspired Apostles ? 

■ IV. My fourth general argument against the infallibility of the 
church of Rome, is — that the Scriptures quoted in proof of it, 
really give it no support. Strange as it may appear, Roman writers 



CHURCH INFALLIBILITY. 53 

assure us, that by the exercise of our private judgment we cannot 
understand the Scriptures, and then quote to us passage after pas- 
sage of holy writ, and appeal to our understanding whether the 
meaning is not manifestly what they take it to be ! We believe 
we can understand the word of God ; and since they inconsistent- 
ly make their appeal to our understandings, we will examine the 
passages adduced. 

1 . The first passage we notice, and which is universally adduced 
by Roman writers, is Math, xviii, 15 — ^^ Hear the church." I 
give the quotation in the form in which it is frequently presented. 
The argument is this : Jesus Christ commands us to hear the 
church ; he would not command us to hear a fallible body ; 
therefore the church i»r infallible. But in reference to ivhat are 
we required to hear the church ? Let us take the passage in its 
connection : '' Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against 
thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone ; if he 
shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will 
not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the 
mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but 
if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an 
heathen man and a publican." Now let me ask again, what are 
men required to hear the church about ? Is it in reference to 
doctrine ? No — but in reference simply to a difficulty arising 
out of an injury done by one member of the church to another — 
simply in reference to a case of discijpline. But does not Bishop 
Hughes state distinctly, that in matters of discipline the church 
does not claim infallibility ? And yet in the face of this declara- 
tion a passage is adduced, having reference exclusively to dis- 
cijpline^ in order to prove the church infallible in doctrine ! And 
to make the argument still more ridiculous, a passage is brought for- 
ward to prove the infallibility of the universal church, which relates 
simply to a matter of difficulty between two members of the church, 
as if such a case were ever brought before a general council \ 

2. The next Scripture proof we notice is the promise connected 
with the commission given the Apostles by our Saviour — ^' Go 



54 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

teach all nations, &c. And lo, I am with you alway, even to the 
end of the world." Math, xxviii, 20. We admit (and we rejoice in 
the truth) that Jesus Christ will be with his ministers — those who 
preach his gospel, as contained in the Scriptures — until the end 
of the world, — that he will be with each of them " always." 
But will he be with them /or the purpose of making them infal- 
lible ? or will he be with them onli/ to protect them a7id bless them 
in their labors ? We maintain that the latter is the true meaning 
of the passage; more than this cannot be proved from the promise. 
But I shall presently advert to this passage again. 

3. We must now examine that oft quoted passage — " Thou art 
Peter ; and on this rock will I build my church, and the gates of 
hell shall not prevail against it." Math, xvi, 18. That the gates 
of hell, the powers of darkness, will never prevail against the 
church, I rejoice to believe. Two hostile armies engage in terri- 
ble conflict ; alternately victory seems turning in favor of each ; 
but neither can be said to have prevailed, until the other is van- 
quished, and has ceased to fight. In such conflict are the powers 
of darkness and the church of God engaged ; and, at times, such 
has been the torrent of persecution, of error, or of immorality, 
that the hearts of the pious have trembled for the ark of God. 
But again the church has risen from her apparent prostration, and 
with new courage and strength has put to flight the forces of her 
enemies ; and so it shall be to the end of time. In all her con- 
flicts, however for a time the powers of darkness may seem to 
triumph, victory shall be hers. It does not follow, however, that 
she is infallible. 

There are three ways in which the powers of darkness might 
prevail against the church, viz : 1st. By persecution. All mem- 
bers of the church are mortal; and, were it permitted, all might 
be slain by the sword of persecution ; but Omnipotence is pledged, 
that the body shall not be exterminated. 2d. By the prevalence 
of fundamental error ; and, 3d, By the prevalence of immorality. 
It is evident that if the whole church were to become grossly 
wicked, the gates of hell would prevail against her. For then 
she would be the servant of the devil, led captive by him at his 



CHURCH INFALLIBILITY. 55 

will, not the spouse of Christ. One would think the Roman 
Catholic must admit, that the gates of hell had well nigh prevailed 
during that dark period mentioned by Rev. J. Reeve, when the 
whole church, from the popes to the laity, was '^ deluged" with 
simony and licentiousness. Now if any one will prove that 
Jesus Christ cannot prevent the gates of hell from prevailing 
against his church, without making her infallible in doctrine, I 
will prove that he must also render her impeccable, incapable of 
committing sin ; for she might be overcome by immorality as 
well as by doctrinal error. 

It is true, the gates of hell shall never prevail against the 
church. The Reformation of the 16th century is evidence that, 
however for a time overborne by error and immorality, the church 
will, by the grace of God, rise and put on her strength, and 
clothe herself in her beautiful garments. 

Another passage, much relied on by Roman writers, is that in 
which Paul speaks of the church as ** the pillar and ground of the 
truth." The Scriptures are the truth ; and by the church they 
are preserved in purity ; in her pulpits they are read, their inspi- 
ration defended against infidelity, and the minds of men called to 
their instructions, exhortations, and warnings. However error 
may, for a time, mar her beauty, yet, as she has in her pos- 
session the revealed Word of God, she has the means of discov- 
ering and rejecting all error. So it was with the Jewish church. 
** What advantage, then, hath the Jew ? or what profit is there of 
circumcision ?" This question is propounded and answered by 
Paul. Does he say the Jew had the advantage of being in an 
infallible church ? If such had been the fact, would he not have 
said so 1 What is his answer ? " Much [advantage] every 
way : chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles 
of God.^^* The possession of the Scriptures, let it be observed, 
was the chief advantage of the Jewish church ; and so it is of 
the Christian church. Could the church be blotted out of exist- 
ence, " the truth" would soon be forgotten in this wicked world. 
We may, then, safely regard the language of Paul, just quoted, 

* Romans iii, 1, 2. 



56 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

as an infallible exposition of the passage under consideration. 
There is here no promise of church infallibility. 

4. In the Gospel by John, xiv, 26, Roman writers think 
they find most unanswerable evidence in favor of the infalli- 
bility of the church : " But the Comforter, which is the Holy 
Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach 
you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, what- 
soever I have said unto you." See, also, ch. xvi, 13. Most 
cheerfully do we admit, that in these passages plenary inspiration 
and infallibility are promised to the Apostles. Roman bishops claim 
that these promises belong to them as the legitimate successors of 
the Apostles. They have succeeded them in office, and the pro- 
mises made to the Apostles are theirs. So they affirm. Bishop Tre- 
vern says, "It is to them [the bishops] that, in the person of the 
ApostleSj were made that magnificent promise, * Go, teach, I am with 
you ; he that heareth you, heareth me. The Spirit of truth shall 
teach you all truth, &:c.' They alone, then, have the right to teach 
what is revealed, &c.'"* Some of these promises, I have admitted, 
insured to the Apostles inspiration and infallibility. Do they belong 
to the Roman bishops? All, I presume, will admit the correctness 
of the principle, that the fulfillment of the promises of Jesus Christ 
is the best exposition of them. He gave to his Aposdes precisely 
what he promised them. What he gave, therefore, is the best 
evidence of what he promised. Now, it is a fact, that when 
these promises were fulfilled to the Apostles, each of them was an 
inspired and infallible man. Consequently we receive the writ- 
ings of each — the Gospel by Matthew, the Epistles of James, 
Paul, Peter, &c. — as inspired Scripture — as the Word of God. 
In this, Roman Catholics agree with us. It is, then, certain, that 
Jesus Christ promised to his Apostles individual inspiration — 
promised to make, not all of them together, but each of thevh 
infallible in his religious teaching. It will also be admitted, that 
the promisesJiave precisely the same meaninj^ now, as when first 
made. Consequently, if the Roman bishops, as legitimate suc- 
cessors of the Apostles, have a just claim to these promises, each 

* Arnica. Discuss., vol. i, p. 169. 



CHURCH INFALLIBHJTY. 57 

one of them is an inspired and infallible man. For they tell us, 
Jesus Christ made to them the same promises precisely which 
he made to the Apostles — promised to them precisely the same 
that he promised to the Apostles. Of course, as these promises, 
when fulfilled, made each of the Apostles an inspired and infalli- 
ble man ; so when fulfilled to their successors, the Roman bish- 
ops, they must make each of them an inspired and infallible man. 
But this is much more than they claim. They do not pretend 
that any one bishop in the whole church is an infallible man. It 
is not even affirmed, as matter of faith, that the Pope is infallible ; 
although, as Butler tells us, to him belongs " the principal autho- 
rity in defining articles of faith," and he " he holds a rank splen- 
didly pre-eminent, over the highest dignitaries of the church."* 
Now, since the promises of Christ to the Apostles are promises 
of individual inspiration and infallibility ; and since the Roman 
bishops acknowledge that they possess no such inspiration and 
infallibility ; it is perfectly clear, that the promises made to the 
Apostles do not belong to them, and cannot, therefore, be quoted 
as proving the infallibility of their church. There is no escape 
from this conclusion. It is clear as a sunbeam. 

But the Roman clergy, unwilling to abandon their claim to infal- 
libility, take the old promises, made to the Apostles, and give them a 
new meaning! The promises originally secured to the Apostles 
individual inspiration and infallibility. They claim the same pro- 
mises, but so interpret them as to make them secure, not individual 
infallibility, but the infallibility of the body of the church, or of 
the body of bishops — "the teaching body of the church," as 
Bishop Trevern says. But is this method of dealing with Scrip- 
ture allowable ? The bishops of Rome claim authority to change 
the ordinances of Christ ; but can they also change the meaning 
of his word — his promises ? This will scarcely be pretended. 
Moreover, by thus giving new meaning to old promises, the 
Roman bishops profess to secure an inspiration and infallibility 
such as we do not find mentioned in the Scriptures. For, as 
heretofore remarked, the only inspiration of which we read in the 

* Book of the Chuvch, Let. x. 



58 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

Scriptures, is the inspiration of individuals, not of a mass or body 
of men, of whom every individual was uninspired and fallible. 

Since, then, the Roman bishops evidently cannot claim the 
promises made to the Apostles, and since they are obliged to con- 
fess that they have not such inspiration as the Apostles had, we 
must utterly reject their claims to infallibility. 

The truth is, the Apostles were chosen to perform extraordi- 
nary duties, in an extraordinary state of the church, and, there- 
fore, they were endowed with extraordinary gifts, and extraordi- 
nary authority. In the ordinary duties of the ministry, teaching, 
baptizing, &;c., they had successors ; but those duties, since the 
canon of Scripture is complete, require not infallibility. And 
since it is certain that no bishops or clergymen on earth have 
their qualifications, their gifts, it is presumption for any to claim 
the authority in the church which they exercised. The Roman 
bishops, though obliged to acknowledge that they have not Apos- 
tolic inspiration, still apply to themselves the language of the 
Saviour to the Apostles — " He breathed on them, and saith unto 
them, receive ye the Holy Ghost, <fec." What presumption in 
men who confess that they have not received the Holy Spirit, as 
the Apostles received Him ! 

V. My fifth general argument against the infallibility of the 
church of Rome, is — that the church under the old dispensation 
was certainly fallible^ and often greatly errcd^ both in doctrines and 
in morals. Roman writers, in order to defend the claims of their 
church to infallibility, are constrained to defend also the infalli- 
bility of the erring church of the Jews. For if the people of 
God could serve him without an mfallible church to guide them, 
under a dark dispensation, it would follow, of course, that with 
the additional light of the New Testament there is still less 
necessity for such infallibility. Happily w^e have an inspired 
history of the Jewish church, and consequently we have no diffi- 
culty in proving her fallible. It is not my purpose to adduce a 
tithe of the evidence afforded by the Scriptures on this subject. 
A few plain facts will suffice. 

1. The Jewish church greatly erred in doctrine, and corrupted 



CHURCH INFALLIBILITY. 59 

the word of God hy her traditions ; for, like the church of Rome, 
she had, before the incarnation of Christ, treasured up a great 
number of them. " Then came together unto him [Christ] the 
Pharisees and certain of the Scribes, which came from Jerusalem. 
And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled 
(that is to say, with unwashen) hands, they found fauJt. For the 
Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat 
not, holding the tradition of the elders. — Then the Pharisees and 
Scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the 
tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands ? He 
answered and said unto them. Well hath Esaias prophecied of 
you, hypocrites, as it is written. This people honoreth me with 
their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit, in vain do 
they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of 
men. And he said unto them. Full well ye reject the command- 
ments of God, that ye may keep your own traditions." * And 
the Saviour gives, as an example of their false teaching, their inter- 
pretation of the commandment — " Honor thy father and thy 
mother," and charges them with ^^ making the word of God of 
none effect through their tradition which they have delivered;" 
Now, let it be remarked, these were the traditions of the elders^ 
delivered by the Scribes and Pharisees who sat in Moses' seat ; 
and they were observed by " the Pharisees and all the Jews " — 
hy the whole church. Moreover, they were regarded as of divine 
authority, as obh'gatory upon all. Therefore they found great 
fault with our Saviour for disregarding them. By these traditions, 
like the church of Rome, they pretended to explain the Scriptures, 
but did in truth pervert them, making the word of God of none 
effect. In a word, their traditions were false and injurious. 
They taught for doctrines the commandments of men ; and mis- 
interpreted and rejected the commandments of God. These 
were errors neither of opinion nor of discipline^ but of doctrines 
and morals. Now let me ask any candid man, whether the Jew- 
ish church was not greatly fallible % { See also Math, xv.) 
Bishop Milner attempts to answer this argument in the follow- 

* Mark vii. 



60 



ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY, 



ino- manner: " Among the traditions which prevailed at the time 
of our Saviour, some were divine^ such as the inspiration of the 
books of Moses, and the other prophets, the resurrection of the body, 
and the last judgment, which assuredly Christ did not condemn, 
but confirmed. There were others merely human^ and of a 
recent date, introduced, as St. Jerome informs us, by Sammai, 
Killel, Achiba, and other Pharisees, from which the Talmud is 
chiefly gathered. These, of course, were never obligatory. In 
like manner, there are among Catholics divine traditions^ such as 
the inspiration of the gospels, the divine observation of the Lord's 
day, the lawfulness of invoking the prayers of the Saints, and 
other things not clearly contained in the Scriptures ; and there 
are, among many Catholics, historical and even fabulous tradi- 
tions. Now, it is to the former, as avowed to be divine by the 
church, that w^e appeal: of the others, every one may judge as 
he thinks best." * 

Such is the answer of the Bishop, to w^hich I reply — 1st. We 
deny that the inspiration of the books of Moses, and the other 
prophets, the resurrection of the body, and the last judgment, 
depended at all on tradition ; and consequently we deny, that 
the Bishop has discovered any divine traditions in the keeping of 
the Jewish church. 2d. But if we should admit the fact to be 
as he says, this admission would not remove the difficulty. For 
the traditions for the neglect of which our Saviour was condemned, 
were, as we have seen, the traditions of the churchy delivered as 
of divine authority by the Scribes and Pharisees, sitting in 
Moses' seat They were traditions contrary to the word of God, 
making that word of none effect. Those guides, who are by 
Romanists regarded as infallible teachers, are charged by our 
Lord with " teaching /(^r doctrines the commandments of men." 
There is no escaping from the fact, which is clear as the noon- 
day sun, that the Jewish church did egregiously err in doctrines 
and in morals. It matters not, so far as the argument is con- 
cerned, whether she had any true traditions or not. The fact 
that she taught that which was false and injurious, that she per- 

* End of Con., Let. xii. 



JEWISH INFALLIBILITY. 61 

verted, nay, rejected the commandments of God, and obeyed 
the commandments of men, — this fact is abundantly sufficient 
to prove her fallible. So far were the Jewish teachers from 
guiding the people in the way of life, that our Saviour used in 
reference to them this terrific language : " Woe unto you, Scribes 
and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven 
against men ; for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye 
them that are entering to go mP * " Woe unto you, lawyers ! 
for ye have taken away the key of knowledge : ye entered not 
in yourselves, and them that were entering ye hindered."! He 
denounces them as "blind guides," as "fools and blind." Such 
is the infallibility of the Jewish church ! 

But this is not the worst. She rejected and crucified the Son 
of God. From the time when he entered upon his public min- 
istry, the Jewish priesthood, the Scribes and Pharisees, not only 
rejected him as an impostor, and excommunicated all who 
acknowledged him, but constantly plotted his death, until they 
accomplished the horrid deed. Our Saviour had a regular trial 
before the Jewish Sanhedrim, the great ecclesiastical tribunal of 
the church, over which presided the high priest. It was unani- 
mously voted that he was guilty of blasphemy, and that he 
should be put to death. Herein did the Jewish church give sad 
evidence of her fallibility and of her awful corruption. Roman 
writers love to expatiate on the evils growing out of what they 
call private interpretation. Let them^ if they can, point to any 
crime, remotely connected with private interpretation, which bears 
comparison with this — the direct result of church interpretation. 

Bishop Milner vainly attempts to escape the force of this argu- 
ment. He says, it is true they rejected Christ ; " but the law had 
then run its destined course, and the divine assistance failed the 
priests in the very act of rejecting the promised Messiah, who 
was then before them."J This thus I answer — 

1st. The law had not run its destined course until the death of 
Christ ; and therefore, until that event, he required his disciples 
to observe the law. And although the Scribes and Pharisees 
* Math, xxiii, 13. t Luke xi, 52. % End of Con., Let. xii. 



62 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

were " blind guides ;" yet since they still sat in Moses' seat, the 
Saviour directed the people to observe whatever they bid them. 
Of course, he did not direct the people to receive their traditions 
and false interpretations of the Bible, which he and his disciples 
were blamed for rejecting, but only to obey their instructions, so 
far as they were scriptural. 

2. What evidence had the Bishop that the divine assistance 
failed the priests ^'2^5^ at the time they rejected Jesus ? That they 
did then most wickedly err, is certain ; but where is the evi- 
dence that at that moment they ceased to be inspired ? The 
Bishop furnishes none, because there is none, 

3. But suppose we admit that the infallibility of the priest- 
hood failed them at that moment, how could the 'people know this 
fact? They, we are to believe, had been taught implicitly to 
receive the doctrines and instructions of their infallible guides. 
But, it will be said, Christ wrought miracles, proving his divine 
mission. True ; but the infallible teachers told the people that 
he wrought them by Beelzebub, the prince of devils. What were 
they to do ? The truth is, it was the doctrine of Romish church 
interpretation which procured the crucifixion of Christ ; and that 
doctrine still justifies the horrible deed ! The people were forced 
either to reject the Son of God as an impostor, or to abandon 
church interpretation, and rely on their private judgment. 

In view of the arguments now offered, I think we are forced 
to the conclusion, that the doctrine of church infallibility had its 
origin, not in the teaching of Christ and his Apostles, but in the 
pride of the human heart. We turn, then, to that inspired word, 
which guided the Bereans to a knowledge of the truth, and which, 
we are assured, is able to make us wise unto salvation, through 
faith that is in Christ Jesus. 

But, says Bishop Purcell, " The Bible is a dead letter."* 
What does he mean by this language ? Does he mean that it is 
an unmeaning letter ? Why, then, did he so frequently quote it 
in his debate with A. Campbell, to prove the tenets of his church ? 
But if the Bible be a dead letter (what impiety !) are the decrees 

* Purcell and Campbell's Debate, p. 170. 



THE BIBLE A DEAD LETTER. 63 

of the Council of Trent better ? What has imparted life to them ? 
If the Scriptures cannot be understood by uninspired men, pray, 
how can the decrees of the councils be understood ? The Coun- 
cil of Trent sat almost three centuries ago. During this period 
its decrees have been interpreted by fallible men. This is admit- 
ted. Then what assurance can any one have, that those decrees 
are correctly understood? And if the Bible be a dead letter, what 
shall we say of the printed speeches of Bishop Purcell, and of 
all the books written by Papists for the conversion of unbelievers, 
and the instruction of the faithful ? Are they a dead letter ? 
Or are they superior to the Word of God, which, an inspired 
Apostle said, is able to make us wise unto salvation? 

Let the Roman clergy thus dishonor the Word of God. It is 
enough for us to know, that an inspired man has highly commended 
those who searched it daily, and has declared the fact, that they 
came thus to the saving knowledge of the truth. 

In my next discourse I shall point out some of the enormous 
evils growing out of the claims of the church of Rome to infalli- 
bility, and some of the benefits resulting from taking the Scrip- 
tures as the only infallible guide. 



1 



i 



ORAL TRADITIONS. 65 



LECTURE III. 

Matthew, xv, 14. " Let them alone : they be blind leaders of the blind ; 
and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." 

The Scribes and Pharisees were the religious teachers of the 
Jewish people. They not only boasted of their descent from 
Abraham, the father of the faithful, but gloried in the fact that 
they " sat in Moses' seat." Their succession could be readily 
traced, and, indeed, there was no question but that they were 
teachers regularly appointed in the true church. Forgetting that 
Moses's successors had not 'his gifts, and consequently not his 
authority, they required that their interpretation of divine truth 
should be received by the people, with implicit confidence. 
God, they said, had delivered to Moses an oraU as well as a writ- 
ten, law — tradition as well as Scripture. They professed the 
highest veneration for the Scriptures, but held, as of equal autho- 
rity, the unwritten word committed to the church, and regularly 
transmitted from Moses to them. They looked with strong dis- 
approbation upon the reformation which commenced under the 
ministry of John, and were irritated beyond measure at that 
same work, as carried on under the ministry of Jesus Christ. 
For he was in the constant habit of appealing to the Scriptures, 
but paid no regard, whatever, to " the traditions of the elders," 
which were held in great veneration by " the Pharisees and all 
the Jews." He not only denied their infallibility and condemned 
their traditions, but pronounced them "blind guides," whose 
teachings were fatal to their disciples ; and declared, that although 
they compassed land and sea to make proselytes, they only made 
them two-fold more the children of hell, than before. They, on 
their part, threatened with excommunication every man who ven- 
tured to acknowledge him as the promised Messiah. In the context 



66 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

we have an account of his exposure of some of their false teach- 
ings, and of their consequent displeasure. The text is his reply- 
to those who informed him that his language had given them 
offense. From these facts the following important principles are 
clearly deducible : 

I. Ecclesiastical succession, however clearly established, proves 
nothing conclusively in favor of any church, or of her religious 
teachers. Succession was plead against our Saviour — " We be 
Abraham's seed," exclaimed the Jews. "If ye were Abraham's 
children, ye would do the works of Abraham," replied Jesus. 
" We are Moses' disciples," cried the Pharisees. " We know 
that God spake unto Moses : as for this fellow, we know not 
from whence he is." ^* Had ye believed Moses," said Jesus, " ye 
would have believed me ; for he wrote of me." The Roman 
clergy, like the Scribes and Pharisees, boast of their succession. 
They can trace it, they say, with perfect clearness up to the 
Apostles themselves. We might admit, though it is not true, that 
there has been a regular succession of bishops in Rome, as there 
was of Jewish teachers from Moses ; but like these latter, they 
may have greatly corrupted the Word of God by their traditions, 
and may now be " blind leaders of the blind." The Greek 
church can claim a succession as easily traced to the Apostles, as 
that of the church of Rome. The best evidence of true apostolic 
succession is apostolic faith and practice. The Apostles of Christ, 
though excommunicated and persecuted by the Jewish church, 
were yet the true successors of Abraham, of Moses, and the Pro- 
phets ; for they believed in the promised " seed " of Abraham, and 
preached " Him of whom Moses in the law and the Prophets did 
write." So the Waldenses and the Reformers of the 16th century, 
though excommunicated and anathematized by the church of Rome, 
were nevertheless the true successors of the Apostles, holding and 
preaching the gospel preached by those holy men. Ecclesiastical 
history, very imperfectly written, may deceive us ; but, thanks to 
God ! we can yet bring the doctrines of those who would be our 
spiritual guides, to the safe test applied by the noble Bereans. We 
can search the Scriptures daily whether these things are so. In the 



UNITY OF FAITH. 67 



New Testament we have the ecclesiastical government, the faith, 
and the worship of the primitive apostolic church ; and it is no 
very difficult matter to determine how far the church of Rome 
resembles it. " To the law and to the testimony : if they speak 
not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them." 

II. Unity of faith is not, of itself, evidence of true faith. If 
the blind lead the blind, they will walk more closely together 
than persons who might have tolerable vision ; but yet they go 
together into the ditch. No wonder that there was amongst the 
the corrupt Jews great unity of faith, or of unbelief; since 
their teachers had taken from them "the Key of Knowledge," 
and undertaken to think for them. Nor is it strange that all 
those who have agreed to believe whatever the pope and his bish- 
ops dictate to them, should have the same faith. This, however, 
is no evidence that their faith is true ; especially when we find 
them obliged to preserve the unity of their faith, by placing most 
important points of doctrine under the head of opinions. And 
yet, accommodating as they are in this respect, no church in exist- 
ence has had in it so frequent and so extensive schisms. 

III. Implicit faith in the religious teachings of fallible men 
will result in incalculable evil, if not in ruin, to those who exer- 
cise it. " If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the 
ditch." No class of men are more likely to be given up " to 
believe a lie," than those who, fallible as others, arrogate to 
themselves infallibility, and demand for their " private interpreta- 
tion" that confidence which is due only to men who " spake as 
they were moved by the Holy Ghost." One cannot help seeing 
a striking resemblance between the spirit which showed itself in 
the broad phylacteries of the Pharisees, and that which manifests 
itself in the costly robes of Roman bishops ; between the spirit 
which made the former delight to be called Rabbi, Rabbi, and that 
which causes the pope to be pleased with the proud appellation, 
" His Holiness," and his bishops with their lofty titles. The 
crucifixion of Christ, as we have seen, was the work of church 
interpretation ; and the long continued dispersion and ruin of 
the Jewish nation are the sad results of placing implicit confi- 



58 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

dence in those who boasted of the antiquity of their church and 
their direct succession from Moses, 

Having proved, as I think, the fallibility of the church of 
Rome, I purpose, in the present discourse, to point out some of 
the evils resulting from her claims, and some of the advantages 
arising from following the Protestant rule — the sacred Scriptures. 

I. The first evil I mention, is the corruption of the word of 
God by mingling with it human compositions and traditions. 
To the Scriptures of the Old Testament, received by Protestants, 
the council of Trent added the following books and chapters: 
Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, 1st and 2d Maccabees, 
Baruch added to Jeremiah^ the Song of the three children, the 
History of Susanna, the Story of Bel and the Dragon added to 
Daniel, and some chapters to Esther. These books and chapters 
are added to the sacred canon simply on the authority of the 
church of Rome or her bishops. The Council of Trent, after 
enumerating them in connection with those received by Pro- 
testants, says — " Whoever shall not receive, as sacred and canon- 
ical, all these books, and every part of them, as they are 
commonly read in the Catholic church, and are contained in the 
old Vulgate Latin edition, &c., let him be accursed." That the 
books in question are mere human compositions, not written by 
inspired men, is perfectly clear from a number of facts, a few of 
which I will mention : 

1. They were never received into the canon by the Jewish 
church. To this fact testifies Josephus, the Jewish historian. 
" For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, 
disagreeing from, and contradicting one another [as the Greeks 
have], but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of 
all the past times, which are justly believed to be divine."* He 
mentions four books of Moses, thirteen written by Prophets after 
the death of Moses, and " four books which contain hymns to 
God, and precepts for the conduct of human life." Of the 
Apocryphal books he says — " It is true our history hath been 
written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been 

* Against Apion, Book J, Sec. viii. 



APOCRYPHAL BOOKS. 69 

esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, 
because there hath not been an exact succession of Prophets since 
that time."* This fact is not denied by Roman Catholics. 
Bishop Trevern, quoting 1 Maccabees, admits that it is not in 
the Jewish canon, and says, ^* It never could have been there 
enumerated, since the canon was closed by Esdras [Ezrah] long 
before the days of Maccabees."! This is indeed a most sin- 
gular reason. Ezrah w^as an inspired man ; and if he closed 
the Jewish canon, he did so by divine direction. And will 
any one pretend that God directed Ezrah to close the canon 
before it was complete, and that he afterwards inspired other men 
to write for the edification of his church, and yet left their 
writings to float down till the latter part of the fourth century 
(for it is not pretended that the Apocryphal books were received 
into the canon sooner) with no care of his church for their pre- 
servation or their purity ? Could not the Jewish Sanhedrim, if 
they knew them inspired, have received them at any time? 
Were they not quite as capable of judging of their inspiration 
as any council, in the fourth or the sixteenth century ? Bishop 
Milner makes the same admission, but claims the apocryphal 
books as inspired, "because," says he, "the Catholic church so 
considers them, from whose traditions, and not from those of the 
Jews, as St. Austin signifies, our sacred canon is to be formed." | 
This is another singular method of escaping the difficulty ; for 
the Bishop, in this same book, defends the infallibity of the Jew- 
ish church, to the time when she rejected the Saviour, at which 
time, he says, " the divine assistance failed the priests in the very 
act of their rejecting the promised Messiah, who was then before 
them."§ Now the books in question were written some time, some 
of them several centuries, before the Jewish priests rejected the 
Messiah, and, of course, before the divine assistance failed them. 
The Jewish church, therefore, was infallible, if we are to believe 
Bishop Milner (and Bishop Hughes, of New York, takes the 
the same ground), when the books were written. She was 

* Against Apion, Book I, Sec. viii. f Arnica. Discuss. Vol. II, p. 174. 
i End of Con., Let. xliii. ^Ibid.Let. xii. 



70 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

acquainted with them, but, as Josephus says, did not regard them 
as of equal authority with the inspired books of her canon. Con- 
sequently they were rejected by a church believed by Roman 
Catholics to be infallible. How happens it, then, that the decision 
of the infallible Roman church (who knew nothing of the 
writers) is so much better than that of the infallible Jewish 
church ? Or, how happens it that the two infallible churches 
contradict each other? or rather, that the same church, under 
different dispensations, so flatly contradicts herself? 

Either the books in question are inspired and canonical, or they 
are not. If they are, the Jewish church Avas chargeable with 
great error in not recei\dng them. If they are not, then the 
church of Rome has grievously erred in pronouncing them 
inspired, and requiring all to receive them as the word of God. 
in either case, the Roman doctrine of church infallibility vanishes. 
Some Roman writers, it seems, have attempted to prove, that some 
of the Jews believed the books in question to be inspired ; but 
Dr. Jahn, Professor of Oriental Languages, (fee, in the Univer- 
sity of Vienna, himself a Romanist, says, " The arguments by 
which some have attempted to show that the Hellenistic Jews 
attributed these books to divine authority, are of no force." * 

2. That the Jewish church was right in rejecting the apocry- 
phal books, is clear from the facts — that Christ and the Apostles 
neither charged her with rejecting or neglecting any part of the 
Scriptures; nor did they ever quote any one of these books. 
The J ews were severely reproved by our Saviour for corrupting 
the Scriptures by their traditions ; but he did not intimate that 
they had been unfaithful in keeping the oracles which, as Paul 
says, were committed to them.j If they had been guilty of such 
an error, would he not have reproved them ? Or if, as Bishop 
Trevern says, the canon was closed by Ezra, before they were 
written, would not he or his Apostles have referred to the books as 
of divine authority ? Would they not have received them into the 
gacred canon? The conclusion appears to me irresistible, that the 

* Introduc. to O. Test., Part I, Chap, ii, p. 47, of Sacred Canon, 
t Rom. iii, 1, 2. 



APOCRYPHAL BOOKS. 71 

canon of the Old Testament, as received by Protestants, has been 
confirmed by Christ and his Apostles ; and the apocryphal books, 
added by the church of Rome, but never recognized in any way 
by them, are mere human compositions, of no authority whatever. 
3. The books in question were not received as inspired by 
the early Christian Fathers. I do not assert, that no one of the 
early writers regarded any one of them as inspired ; but I do 
assert, that by the great majority of the most eminent Fathers 
they were rejected. The first catalogue of the books of the Old 
Testament given by any Christian writer, after the days of the 
Apostles, is that of Melito, bishop of Sardis, in the second cen- 
tury. This important catalogue is preserved by Eusebius, in his 
Ecclesiastical History, who thus introduces it: " But in the selec- 
tions made by him, the same writer, in the beginning of his pre- 
face, gives a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament ac- 
knowledged as canonical. This we have thought necessary to 
give here, literally as follows : ^ Melito sends greeting to his bro- 
ther Onesimus, as you have frequently desired, in your zeal for 
the Scriptures, that I should make selections for you, both from 
the Law and the Prophets, respecting our Saviour, and our whole 
faith; and you were, moreover, desirous of having an exact 
statement of the Old Testament, how many in number, and in 
what order the books were written, I have endeavored to perform 
this. For I know your zeal in the faith, and your great desire 
to acquire knowledge, &c. When, therefore, I went to the east^ 
and came as far as the place where these things were proclaimed 
and done, I accurately ascertained the books of the Old Testa- 
ment, and send them to thee here below. The names are as fol- 
lows: Of Moses, Hve books. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Num- 
bers, Deuteronomy ; Jesus Nave [Joshua], Judges, Ruth ; four of 
Kings; tv/o of Paralepomena [Chronicles]; Psalms of David; 
Proverbs of Solomon (or) Wisdom ; Ecclesiastes ; Song of Songs ; 
Job. Of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah ; of the twelve Prophets, one 
book ; Daniel ; Ezekiel ; Esdras. From these I have made selec- 
tions, which I have divided into six books.'"* 

* Eccl. Hist. Book iv, ch, xxvi. 



72 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

Origen^ the most learned of the Fathers of the third century, 
gives the number of canonical books as twenty-two, " according 
to the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet," and of course 
excludes the apocryphal books.* Cyril, of Jerusalem, gives the 
same. Professor Jahn, a learned Romanist, says: "Neverthe- 
less, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Epiphanius, the anonymous 
framer of the 59th canon of the Council of Laodicea, Hilary, 
Ruffin, and Jerome, exclude these books from the canon."t The 
same author says, that " when some persons objected to the read- 
ing of these books in the churches, the Council of Hippo, in 393, 
and the Councils of Carthage, in 397 and 419, received these 
books into the canon, with the proviso, that the transmarine 
churches should be consulted ; which appears to have been done, 
for Innocent I. declares these books canonical," (fee. He adds, 
" These decrees, however, are not of general obligation, nor are 
they to be understood otherwise than as declaring the reading 
of these books in the churches to be useful for the edifica- 
tion of the people, not as asserting their sufficiency to prove 
theological doctrines. This is attested in express terms, not only 
by Jerome (Pref. in libros Salomonis, Pref. in Judith, and Pref. 
in Tob.), but also by Ruffin (in SomboL), and by Gregory 1. 
(Comm. in Job)."t 

The authority of the eminent Fathers just mentioned is of ex- 
ceeding great w^eight against these books, especially that of the 
learned Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, who had the 
very best opportunities for distinguishing the canonical from the 
apocryphal books. "Augustine," says the venerable Dr. Archi- 
bald Alexander, " is the only one among the Fathers, who lived 
within four hundred years after the Apostles, who seems to favor 
the introduction of these six disputed books into the canon. But 
this opinion he retracted afterwards." § But the Roman clergy 
depart from the Fathers as often as they find it necessary in order 
to support their tenets. 

Professor Jahn asserts that the apocryphal books were never 

* Eccl. Hist. Book vi, ch. xxv. f Iiitr. to Old Test, ch. i, sec. ^9. X Ibid. 
$ Alexander on Canon, 



ORAL TRADITIONS. 73 



placed on an equality with the inspired books of Scripture before 
the meeting of the Council of Trent, but were placed in a second 
canon. He says — '- The difficulties occurring in the Deutero- 
canonical writings [apocryphal booksl have been solemnly ac- 
knowledged by our church [church of Rome] in her separation 
of them from the proto-canonical books, and formation of a sec- 
ond canon."* Yet these same books, rejected by the Jewish 
church, never recognised by Christ or the Apostles, rejected by a 
large number of the most learned Christian Fathers, placed in a 
second caiion of inferior authority by the Roman church herself; 
these books were placed by the Council of Trent on an equality 
with the inspired Scriptures, and every one is anathematized who 
refuses to receive them as the Word of God ! " They be blind 
leaders of the blind." 

It would be easy to prove that these books contain immorali- 
ties, contradictions, errors in geography and history, and gross 
superstitions, sufficient to exclude them from the sacred canon ; 
but I cannot now go into the investigation of this point. The 
evidence already adduced is abundantly sufficient. 

II. But, in addition to the apocryphal books, which make a 
large volume, the church of Rome has corrupted the Word of 
God by an indefinite number of traditions. Men are not only 
required, under pain of anathema, to receive as inspired the apo- 
cryphal books, but " also the aforesaid traditions, pertaining both 
to faith and manners, whether received from Christ himself, or 
dictated by the Holy Spirit and preserved in the Catholic church 
by continual succession." These traditions, as I have before 
proved, depend for authority wholly upon the pretended infalli- 
bility of the church of Rome. But as she is evidently fallible, 
so are her traditions, like those of the Jewish church, of human 
origin, calculated to "make the Word of God of none effect." 

The word tradition^ which is a literal translation of the Greek 
word paradosis, signifies something delivered by one person to 
another, either orally or in writing. Thus Paul says to the 
Thessalonian Christians, " Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and 

* Introduc. to Old Test., ch. iv, sec. 216. 
4 



74 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word 
or our epistle^* The early Christian writers used the word to 
signify doctrines handed doiv7i from generation to generation in 
any particular church or number of churches; which doctrines 
are taught in the Scriptures. Bishop Milner quotes the follow- 
ing as the language of Irenseus : ^' Nothing is easier to those who 
seek for the truth than to remark, in every church, the traditio7i 
which the Apostles have manifested to all the world. We can 
name the bishops appointed by the Apostles in the several 
churches, and the successors of those bishops down to our own 
time, none of whom ever taught or heard of such doctrines as 
these heretics dream off The traditions here mentioned are 
the doctrines taught by the Apostles and received from age to age 
in the churches organized by them. 

Protestants do not reject all traditions. That you may see the 
precise point of difference between us and the Romanists, I re- 
mark — 1st. We, of course, receive written tradition — -the Scrip- 
TUE-ES. 2d. We certainly admit, that the churches were bound 
to believe and practice whatever the inspired Apostles taught 
them in their preaching. 3d. We by no means object to refer- 
ence to the faith of the primitive Christians, as assisting us in the 
right understanding of the Scriptures ; though we. do not receive 
their views as infallibly true. 4th. But we enter our solemn pro- 
test against the doctrine of the church of Rome, that there are 
truths relating to faith and manners^ not contained in the Scrip- 
tures, but co7nmitted as oral traditions to the Christian church, to 
he. transmitted from age to age. This, then, is precisely the 
point in controversy. Now if you will take the trouble to exa- 
mine the quotations from the Fathers, adduced by Roman writers 
in favor of tradition, you will find very few, if any, of the earlier 
waiters who hold to tradition such as we reject. The traditions 
for w^hich they contended relate principally to doctrines clearly 
taught in the Bible, and received by the churches from one gene- 
ration to another. 

But our immediate concern is with the Scripture testimony on 

* 2 Thess. ii, 15. \ End of Con., Letter x. 



\ 



i 



ORAL TRADITIONS. 75 



this point. For, inconsistent as it may seem, Roman writers 
prove the inspiration of the Scriptures from tradition, and then 
prove the authority of tradition from the Scriptures. That 
the traditions of Rome possess no authority from Christ, is 
evident — 1st. From the fact that the Jewish church, though 
she had many traditions, had none of divine authority. The 
law which God gave to Moses, he commanded him to com- 
mit to writing; and that law was to be read to the whole Jew- 
ish people once in seven years (Deut. xxxi, 9 — 12). Moreover, 
the Jews were never required to observe any unwritten law, 
nor condemned for the disregard of such a law. On the con- 
trary, we find constant reference to the Book of the Law, as con- 
taining the truths by which they were to be governed. Thus, 
God, giving directions to Joshua, after the death of Moses, said — 
" This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth ; but thou 
shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to 
do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt 
make thy way prosperous."* Did God require him to observe 
the whole law? If he did, the whole was contained in the 
Book of the Law, and no part of it in oral tradition. And great 
prosperity was promised the Jews, on condition of their observing 
"his commandments and his statutes, which are written in this 
book of the lawP^ From Genesis to Malachi we find constant 
reference to the Book of the Law, but not an allusion to any oral 
traditions of divine authority. And in the New Testament we 
find our Saviour and the Apostles speaking of the Jewish tradi- 
tions only in the language of indiscriminate condemnation. 
" Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep 
your own tradition.''^ In their discourses, and in the epistles, we 
find constant appeals to the Scriptures, but in no one instance did 
they refer with approbation to the unwritten traditions of the Jew- 
ish church. More than one hundred times, if my memory serves 
me, are the Scriptures quoted or referred to in the New Testa- 
ment; but not once is the authority of tradition adduced. If, 

* Josh, i, 7, 8. t Deut. xxx, 10. See also Josh, viii, 31, and 2 Kings xiv, 6. 
X Matt. XV, and Mark vii. 



76 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

then, the church under the old dispensation had no traditions of 
divine authority, still less does the Christian church, now blessed 
with the clearer light of the New Testament, need them. If, with the 
Old Testament, men were thoroughly furnished unto all good works, 
surely with the addition of the New, there can be no lack of light. 

2d. We are, therefore, prepared for the fact, which I now pro- 
ceed to prove, that in the New Testament there is not one inti- 
mation that a part of God's revelation was to remain unwritten, 
and to be transmitted to future ages by the church, in the form of 
oral traditions. Three passages are relied on in proof of this 
doctrine. The first is 1 Cor. xi, 2. "Now I praise you, brethren, 
that ye remember me in ail things, and keep the ordinances 
(traditions) as I delivered them to you." The next is 2 Thess. 
ii, 15. " Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions 
which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle." 
The third is 2 Thess. iii, 6. " Now we command you, brethren, 
in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw your- 
selves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after 
the tradition which ye received of us." 

Now, let me ask any candid man, what do these passages 
prove? Simply that the churches were bound to believe and 
practice what the Apostles taught them, whether in the epistles 
they wrote, or in the discourses they delivered orally. Do they 
prove anything more than this? Do they afTord any ground 
whatever for the Roman doctrine, that a part of God's revelation 
to man was to be transmitted orally, by the church, from age to 
age? Is there the least evidence alTorded by them that Paul 
taught the church at Corinth, or the church at Thessalonica, one 
truth which is not now contained in the New Testament ? Look 
at the premises. Paul required particular churches to receive 
and obey whatever he and other inspired Apostles taught them, 
whether orally or in writing : therefore a part of divine revelation 
was to remain unwritten, and, in this form, to be transmitted to 
all future generations, by the church universal! Is there the 
slightest connection between the premises and the conclusion ? 
Surely, no one will pretend that there is. 



CONSENT OF FATHERS. 77 

But it is asserted, that Protestants, even whilst professedly re- 
jecting and denouncing oral traditions, are constrained to resort 
to them in order to determine many points in their faith and 
practice ; such, for example, as the observance of the first day of 
the week, instead of the seventh, as the Sabbath. The assertion, 
however, is not true. Protestants keep the first day of the week 
as the Sabbath, because they are authorized by the Scriptures so 
to do. Nor is there one point of faith or duty, for the under- 
standing of which they rely on the authority of oral tradition. 
With the Scriptures in their hands and in their hearts, they are 
" thoroughly furnished unto all good works," Roman writers 
may contend that the Scriptures are not clear on the points speci- 
fied by them ; but Protestants believe that they are, and they 
rely solely on their authority. The conclusion appears to me 
unavoidable, that the Bible affords not the least evidence in favor 
of the Roman doctrine of tradition, and consequently that the 
traditions of the Roman church, like those condemned by our 
Saviour, are of human origin, and that their tendency is to per- 
vert the word of God. 

III. What an amount of human composition and error are 
contained in the Apocryphal books, and in the multitude of tra- 
ditions, imposed by the church of Rome on her children. Nor 
is this all. Not only are men required by the Council of Trent 
to receive all the traditions of Rome, and forbidden to understand 
the Scriptures otherwise than as the Roman bishops interpret 
them, but it is added — " Or contrary to the unanimous conserit 
of the Fathers.'^ And the creed of Pope Piu3 IV, requires of all 
who enter the church the following pledge : " Nor will I ever take 
or interpret them [the Scriptures] otherwise, than according to 
the unanimous consent of the Fathers." Now, in reference to 
this requirement of the church of Rome, several inquiries may 
be made: 

1. Who are "the Fathers?" Which of the early Christian 
writers belong to this class ; and how far is the list to be extended 
toward our own times ? We turn to the Scriptures for informa- 
tion ; but there we find not the most distant allusion to any 



78 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

Fathers who should live after the Apostles. And, if ever the 
church of Rome, in any of her councils, has given a catalogue of 
them, I have not been informed of it. Here, as in the matter of 
general councils, all is vague and indefinite. Men are canonized 
as Fathers, simply at the will of the Roman clergy. 

2. Were not the Fathers, whose authority is to determine our 
faith, all fallible men ? It is not pretended that any one of them 
was inspired and infallible. It is even declared by Roman 
writers, and by the Council of Trent, that some of them did 
seriously err, in their interpretations of Scripture. Origen, 
for example, was one of the most learned Fathers of the third cen- 
tury. Speaking of his book ^'On Principles,^ ^ Rev. J. Reeve, 
a Roman historian, says, " The opinions he here advances are so 
unfounded, so bold and singular, that they have been universally 
reprobated. Rufinus, famous for his friendship and quarrel with 
St. Jerome, has translated it from Greek into Latin, and although 
he has retrenched all that appeared to him incompatible with the 
tjhurch's doctrine concerning the Trinity, yet the Fifth General 
Council, held at Constantinople, in 553, found still enough to cen- 
sure and condemn. As the foundation on which a huge pile of 
errors is erected, Origen lays down this principle, ' That all pun- 
ishment is medicinal.' " Origen adopted the most erroneous and 
fanciful interpetations of Scripture ; and his wild speculations car- 
ried him into the grossly erroneous doctrine of Restorationism. 
He believed in the pre-existence and transmigration of souls, and 
that ultimately, " their faults will be gradually purged away, and 
that liucifer himself, with all his rebel associates, will at length 
recover the friendship of his Creator."* TertuUian, who lived a 
little earlier, and who is constantly quoted by Roman writers, is 
admitted to have fallen into the errors of Montanus ; and Reeve 
says, "He is thought to have died in his errors, anno 216, a 
melancholy example of obstinate, self-sufficient pride. "t That 
Augustine, another of the most eminent of the Fathers, did fre- 
quently err in his interpretation of the Scriptures, is sufficiently 
* Hist, of Church, v. i, p.l03. t Ibid, p. 94. 



CONSENT OF FATiriERS. 79 

evident from the fact, thai in the latter part of his life he wrote 
his Retractions, in which he corrected the errors of his earlier 
writings. 

By what authority does the church of Rome require her chil- 
dren and others to follow implicitly the consent of those falli- 
ble men in interpreting- the Scriptures? Did the ancient Pro- 
phets, or Christ and his Apostles, ever require those whom they 
taught, to receive implicitly the expositions of God's Word, given 
by any number of uninspired men ? What evidence is there, 
that the unanimous consent of such is infallibly true'? And if 
the church of Rome is infallible, as she professes to be, why does 
she find it necessary to rely upon the coji.sent of men who are 
confessedly fallible ? 

But the truth is, that, in regard to much the greater part of the 
Scriptures, there is no such thing in existence, as the unanimous 
consent of the Fathers. For, in the first place, some of the most 
eminent of them, for example Polycarp, wrote scarcely anything 
that has reached our time. And then, as I have already proved, 
many of the most eminent of them rejected, as uninspired, the 
apocryphal books, received into the sacred canon by the Council 
of Trent. Of course, in the interpretation of those books, tliere 
cannot be anything like the unanimous consent of the Fathers. 
And Bishop Milner says, " some of the really canonical books 
were rejected or doubted of by different holy Fathers." " In 
short," says he, '^ it was not until the end of the fourth century, 
that the genuine canon of holy Scripture was fixed." *^ The ti'utli 
is, very few of the Fathers, as they are called, have given an 
exposition of any considerable portion of the Scriptures. 

This is not all. The Fathers differed from each other, and 
still more from the church of Rome, in their interpretations of 
Scripture. This has already been proved of three of them. And 
the Council of Trent declared the same to be true of others, partic- 
ularly concerning the duty of the laity and non-officiating clergy 
to receive the cup in the sacrament of the Lord's supper. After 
declaring that they are not bound to receive this sacrament as 

^ End of Con., Let. ix. 



80 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

Christ instituted it, the Council say — " Nor can it be fairly proved 
Trom the discourse recorded in the 6th chapter of John, that 
communion in both kinds is commanded by the Lord, howsoever 
the same may have been interpreted hj various holy Fathers and 
Doctors^ Various holy Fathers and Doctors, it appears, differed 
from the Council in the interpretation of the 6th chapter of St. 
John, and maintained, that all are bound to receive the supper in 
both kinds. 

'. And here, by the way, we see the incorrectness of the assertion 
of Roman writers, that their church cannot make new articles of 
faith ; that her doctrines have always been the same. Various 
holy Fathers held that the laity were bound by divine precept to 
receive the cup, and yet they were not heretics ; but should any 
Roman clergyman hold the same doctrine now^ he would fall 
under the anathema of his church. Again, Melito, and Origen, 
and Athanasius, and Jerome, maintained that the apocryphal 
books received into the canon by the council of Trent, were not 
inspired ; and they, therefore, rejected them from the canon. If 
a Roman bishop were to hold the same doctrine now, he would 
be deposed and anathematized ; for that council made it a matter 
of faith, that those books are inspired. Is it not perfectly clear^ 
then, that the faith of the church of Rome is not now what the 
faith of the church was in the time of those Fathers ? 

But it is really a matter of little importance, whether there is. 
or is not, such a thing as the unanimous consent of the Fathers 
in expounding Scripture, since it is admitted that every one of 
them was uninspired and fallible. Whatever promises were 
made by our Saviour to the church, it is certain that no promise 
of infallibility v>^as made to those men, living in different ages, 
who are called Fathers. The church of Rome, therefore, in 
requiring men to receive implicitly their consent, has usurped 
authority over their consciences, and required them to rest iheir 
faith in the wisdom of man, not in the power of God. Who can 
tell ife how great is the number of human traditions imposed 
upon the faith of those who take the church of Rome as their 
guidei Verily, if she were suddenly divested of all that portion 



PAPISTS CANNOT HEAR GOD SPEAK. 81 

of her faith, and of those ordinances and observances, which are 
derived from mere human authority, her own children would not 
be able to recognize her ! 

IV. Another evil of incalculable magnitude, suffered by those 
who are guided by the church of Rome, is, that they never have 
access to the Word of God — are never permitted to hear God 
speak to them. Mark the precautions taken by the Roman 
clergy to prevent the people beholding the pure light of the gos- 
pel. In the first placOj they are told, that "the Bible is a dead 
letter" — that " all pretend to find their conflicting tenets in it" — 
that those who rely on their own judgment, " cannot make an 
act of faith." Then they are assured, that it is not their duty to 
study the Scriptures, but simply to hear and obey the Roman 
clergy. They, we are told, must and do daily read portions of 
Scripture; "but," says Milner, "no such obligation is generally 
incumbent on the flock, that is, on the laity ; it is sufficient for 
them to hear the word of God from those whom God has ap- 
pointed to announce and explain it to them, whether by sermons, 
or catechisms, or other good books, or in the tribunal of pen- 
ance."* This is not enough. In the third place, they are for- 
bidden to read, or even to possess a Bible, though translated by a 
Catholic author, unless they first obtain from " the bishop or in- 
quisitor" a written fermission\ As Protestants are so often 
charged with slandering the church of Rome in relation to this 
matter, I will read the answer of Bishop Milner to the charge. 
" Still, however, the Catholic church never did prohibit the read- 
ing of the Scriptures to the laity; she only required, by way 
of preparation for this most diflicult and important study, that 
they should have received so much education as would enable 
them to read the sacred books in their original languages^ or in 
that ancient and verier oMe Latin version, the fidelity of which 
she guaranties to them ; or, in case they were desirous of reading 
it in a modern tongue, that they should be furnished with some 
attestation of their piety and docility, in order to prevent their 
turning this salutary food of souls into a deadly poison, as, it is 

* End of Con,, Let xlvii. 



82 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

universally confessed, so many thousands have done."* The 
Roman church, the bishop gravely informs us, never did pro- 
hibit the reading of the Scriptures to the laity; she only required 
them to be able to read them in the original Hebrew and Greek ! 
Orj if they could not do this, she required that they should read 
the Latin Vulgate ! And, pray, why this requirement? Why, 
says he, the church guaranties its fidelity as a translation. But 
if they desired to read the Word of God in a modern tongue, 
what then ? Why, they must be furnished by the '• bishop or 
inquisitor" with some attestation of their piety and docility. For 
what purpose ? That they may not be mjured by a translation, 
the fidelity of which the church does not guaranty? No — no; 
but lest they should convert that salutary food of souls into 
deadly poison. So, what the bishop says about the fidelity of 
the Latin Vulgate translation was designed only to conceal the 
real object of his church, in prohibiting the people from reading 
the Scriptures. The Roman clergy understood perfectly that the 
people would not be able to read the Scriptures in the original 
languages, nor in the Latin Vulgate. They, therefore, felt that 
they were perfectly safe in forbidding them to read them in their 
native tongue, until they could procure from " the bishop or in- 
quisitor" a written certificate, that they were so docile, that they 
never would understand them otherwise than as the clergy direct- 
ed! "At present, however," says the Bishop, '• the chief pastors 
have everywhere relaxed these disciplinary rules." Have the 
the clergy become convinced of the error and iniquity of their 
discipline? Or are we to attribute this relaxation to the influence 
of Protestants, who, laboring under what the Bishop calls '• the 
Bibliomania^'' are resolved to circulate the Scriptures, and to ex- 
pose the tyranny of Rome? 

But let it not be forgotten, that even those who are permitted 
by the Roman clergy to read the Word of God, must still regard 
the decree of the Council of Trent, " that in matters of faith and 
morals, and whatever relates to the maintenance of Christian 
doctrine, no one, confiding in his own judgment, shall dare to 

* End of Con., Let. xlvii. 



POPERY CANNOT BE REFORMED. g3 

wrest the sacred Scriptures to his own sense of them, contrary to 
that which hath been held and still is held by holy mother 
church, whose right it is to judge of the true meaning and inter- 
pretation of sacred Writ ; or contrary to the unanimous consent 
of the Fathers ; even though such interpretations should never be 
published." They must regard that solemn pledge contained in 
the creed of Pope Pius IV — -"I also admit the sacred Scriptures, 
according to the sense which the holy mother church has held 
and does hold," &c. Of what possible advantage can it be to 
the laity to be permitted to read the Scriptures, if they are posi- 
tively required to see with the eyes of the clergy, to believe the 
meaning of the Scriptures to be just what they assert 1 VeriJy 
the Roman clergy seem to have a deep and abiding conviction, 
that the Scriptures are not likely to make Papists of those who 
read them ? They have, therefore, taken from the people " the 
key of knowledge," and forbidden them, under severe penalties, 
ever to hear God speak. They must only hear the pope and 
his bishops tell what, thei/ pretend, God has said ! " They be 
blind leaders of the blind." 

V. The last evil I shall now mention, which follows the 
adoption of the Roman Catholic rule, is — that errors once ad- 
mitted can never be corrected. Humanum est errare. To err, 
is human ; and the man who claims infallibility for all the senti- 
ments he advances, is obliged, in order to sustain his pretensions, 
to defend as true every error into which he may fall. All the 
doctrinal errors and superstitions, therefore, into which the councils 
and popes of the dark ages fell, are forever entailed on the 
church of Rome, and must be implicitly believed by the most 
enlightened of her members and her clergy. For, if it be ad- 
mitted that any general council adopted a single error in regard 
to doctrine or morals, the claim of the church to infallibility must 
be abandoned forever. Accordingly, every Roman Catholic pro- 
fesses, according to the creed of Pius IV, as follows : " I also 
profess and undoubtedly receive all other things delivered, defined, 
and declared by the sacred canons and general councils, and 
particularly by the holy Council of Trent ; and likewise I also 



84 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, 
and all heresies whatsoever, condemned, rejected, and anathema- 
tized by the church." 

As a single specimen of what Roman Catholics must ever 
defend, I will read the decision of the Council of Constance in 
relation to the safe conduct granted by the Emperor Frederick to 
John Huss. This man may be regarded as the morning star of 
the Reformation. He arose early in' the fifteenth century, and 
preached in Bohemia some of the prominent doctrines afterwards 
taught by the Reformers of the sixteenth century. ' Charged 
with heresy, he was summoned to appear before the Council of 
Constance. Aware of the spirit of the church at that day, he 
took the precaution to obtain from the Emporer a safe conduct, 
that he might go and return, safe from violence. When Huss 
arrived at the place he was forthwith imprisoned, in utter dis- 
regard of his safe conduct ; and when tried and condemned as a 
heretic, he was handed over to the civil authorities to be pun- 
ished, and was accordingly burned at the stake. 

But Huss carried with him the Emperor's safe conduct. How, 
then, could he be imprisoned and burned, unless the Emperor 
should most shamefully disregard his own solemn pledge of pro- 
tection ? He was a good Catholic ; and the Council felt bound to 
relieve his conscience. That infallible body, therefore, came to 
the following decision, which I give as translated by Bishop 
Hughes, of New York : 

'* This present sacred Synod declares, that, out of any. safe 
conduct whatever, granted to heretics, or persons accused of 
heresy, by the Emperor, Kings, or secular Princes, by whatever 
tie they may have bound themselves, thinking thus to recall 
those persons from their errors, no prejudice to the Catholic faith 
can or ought to arise, nor any obstacle be thrown in the way of 
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, by which it might be less lawful for 
the competent and ecclesiastical judge, notwithstanding said 
safe conduct, to inquire into the errors of such persons, and other- 
wise proceed against them, and punish them, as justice shall 
direct, if they obstinately refuse to retract their errors — even 



NO FAITH KEPT WITH HERETICS. 85 

though they come to the place of judgment, trusting to then' 
safe conduct, and otherwise would not have come : nor is he, who 
makes the promise, when he has done what is in his power to do, 
bound by any further obligation."* 

Such is this famous document, the obvious meaning of which 
is, that the Emperor, however solemnly pledged to protect Huss, 
was not bound to regard his safe-conduct. The safe-conduct, of 
course, had no reference to the ecclesiastical trial which Huss had 
been summoned to undergo, nor to any ecclesiastical sentence that 
might be passed upon him, but simply to the protection of his 
person from violence, until his return home. Roman writers are 
not quite agreed as to the best method of defending this decision ; 
for defend it they must, since it involves a most important prin- 
ciple in morals — a subject embraced within the church's claim to 
infallibility. Bishop Hughes says, " He had obtained his safe- 
conduct from the Emperor, as going to the Council^ only."t So 
then, according to the Bishop, the infallible Council felt them- 
selves solemnly called upon to decide, that the Emperor was not 
bound by a safe-conduct which had expired ! He saves their 
infallibility by making them a company of perfect simpletons ! 
Unfortunately, however, the Council did not decide, that em- 
perors and kings were not bound by a safe-conduct, after the 
time for which it was granted had expired. They decided, that 
they were not bound to regard a safe-conduct, " by whatsoever tie 
they may have bound themselves^'^ to prevent heretics from being 
punished '^ as justice shall direct," — that they were not bound, 
" even though they come to the place of judgment, trusting to 
their safe-conduct, and otherwise would not have come." Reeve, 
in his Ecclesiastical History, attempts a different mode of defense. 
He says, " The passport contained nothing more than a recom- 
mendation from the Emperor to the magistrates and commanders 
of those towns and places, through which master John Huss had 
to pass in his way from Bohemia to Constance, that they would 
let him pass unmolested, and gratuitously provide him with every 
thing necessary for his journey, both in going and returning.''^ X 

* Debate with Breckenridge, p. 168. f Ibid.% p. 167. X Hist, of Cli., v. ii, p. 167. 



86 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

Here, it will be perceived, Reeve, though zealously defending 
the council, flatly contradicts Hughes. For he states, that the 
safe-conduct included not only his journey to Constance, but his 
return ; whilst Hughes positively declares, that it included only 
his journey to Constance, and adds — '' Yet almost all Protestants, 
deceived by their writers and ministers, assert that the Emperor 
had bound himself to bring him safe back." There is another 
most important point in regard to which these two Rev. defenders 
of the council contradict each other. Hughes admits that the 
document granted Huss was properly a safe-conduct, securing 
protection on his journey to Constance ; while Reeve represents 
it as merely a recommendation from the Emperor to the magis- 
trates, &c. The former defends the Emperor and the council 
on the ground, that the safe-conduct had expired ; the latter 
defends them on the ground, that although it had not expired, 
yet it was " nothing more than a recommendation^^ and therefore 
not binding! Both, however, agree to save the infallibility of 
the council by making them act as simpletons. Hughes, as 
already remarked, makes them gravely decide, that emperors, 
kings, and civil rulers, are not bound by a safe-conduct after it 
has expired ; and Reeve makes them determine, that civil rulers 
are not bound to enforce a mere recommendation. Unfortunately 
for both of them, the council, as the decree proves, decided neither 
of these questions, but one of very different character, viz : that 
civil rulers, however solemnly pledged to do so, are not bound to 
protect from corporeal punishment persons denounced by the 
church as heretics. Evidently the council desired to have Huss 
put to death ; and, to gain this point, they solemnly decided 
the principle to be correct, that faith is not to be kept with 
heretics, if thereby the interests of the church of Rome are likely 
to suffer I 

Such are a few of the difficulties in which those persons are 
involved, who undertake to defend the infallibility of the erring 
popes and councils of the church of Rome. Other similar diffi- 
culties were pointed out, in a preceding lecture, as involved in the 
effort to defend the infallibility of the Fourth Council of Lateran. 



EXCELLENCY OF PROTESTANT RULE. 87 

Examples might be pointed out almost ad infinitum ; but some 
of them will come up in the succeeding discussion. 

How infinitely preferable the Protestant rule — the sacred Scrip- 
tures ! Roman Catholics themselves acknowledge, that the books 
received by us into the sacred canon, are truly inspired. We are 
cumbered with no human compositions, and no traditions, " mak- 
ing the word of God of none effect." We go not in search of 
the unanimous consent of fallible men, through thousands of 
pages of musty folios. We come at once to the pure Word of 
God. No haughty priesthood are permitted to step between us 
and our Saviour, and forbid us to peruse the language of him who 
spoke as never man spoke. By that Word which is " a light 
to our feet and a lamp to our path," we may walk safely. By 
the same infallible rule adopted by the noble Bereans, we can 
" try the spirits, whether they be of God." Men may pervert 
its plain meaning, and, in the name of Christ, teach the most 
monstrous errors ; but the sincere inquirer after truth may still 
" search the Scriptures daily whether these things are so." We 
may ourselves err, but we can re-examine the sacred volume and 
correct our errors. Not so with Rome. All the monstrous errors 
committed by an ignorant priesthood during the dark ages, are 
fastened upon her. She cannot renounce one of them without 
endangering her very existence. 

Let Roman writers disparage the Bible as a ^« dead let- 
ter ;" we know it has infinitely more life in it than the canons 
of general councils, which were made, and must of necessity be 
interpreted, by fallible m.en. The Holy Spirit spoke far more 
lucidly by '' holy men of old," than ever Roman council spoke. 
Peter wrote with far greater simplicity and clearness, than any of 
his pretended successors. And Jesus, " the light of the world," 
suffers none who candidly and prayerfully read his heavenly 
instructions, to walk in darkness. If it be said, men differ widely 
in their interpretations of the Bible, we reply: 1. They differ 
as widely about the questions whether the church of Rome is the 
true church, and whether she is infallible. Of all the members 
of the church of Rome, comparatively few have ever examined 



88 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

these questions at all. Born and educated in that church, they 
have from infancy been taught to regard it as the only true church, 
and to look upon their clergy as infallible guides. But of those who 
have given the subject a careful examination, great numbers have 
been convinced, that the claims of that church are utterly false. 
She has never been able to produce her credentials to the satisfac- 
tion of those vi^hom she desires to have placed under her infalli- 
ble tuition. If it be said the evidences in her favor are quite suf- 
ficient, and that men have erred because of their prejudices ; we 
reply (and with far better evidence in support of our affirma- 
tion), that the Bible is sufficiently plain, and easily understood ; 
but men, from the blinding influence of their depravity, have 
erred from the truth. 2. That all her proud claims have not pre- 
vented heresies and schisms shaking her very foundations. We 
imitate the example of the noble Bereans, and leave those whc 
will, to commit themselves to Rome. 



RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. 89 



LECTURE IV. 

Romans xiv, 12. " So then every one of us shall give account of himself 

to God." 

In this passage of Scripture we have, distinctly taught, the doc- 
trine of individual accountability — the doctrine that every man is 
responsible to God for his religious faith and for his moral conduct, 
and must meet, each for himself, the legitimate consequences of 
the course he may pursue. ^' For we must all appear before the 
judgment seat of Christ ; that every one may receive the things 
done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be 
good or bad." This is indeed a fundamental doctrine of both 
natural and revealed religion— a doctrine, the denial of which 
would force us to the conclusion, that there is no such thing as 
sin or holiness in men. Its truth is so obvious, and so universally 
acknowledged, that further proof is unnecessary. 

From this doctrine flows the inalienable right of every man to 
investigate, with the utmost freedom, all religious tenets and 
moral principles. Each individual is accountable to God, both 
for his faith and his conduct. If, therefore, any one blindly follow 
the dictation of errorists, or allow himself to be deceived by their 
sophistry, they, however accountable for their own sin in mislead- 
ing him, cannot answer for him at the bar of God. Before that au- 
gust tribunal '^ every one shall bear his own burden." It follows, as 
a necessary consequence, that to every individual belongs the right, 
and upon every one is devolved the solemn duty, to examine 
carefully the grounds of that faith, and of those moral principles, 
in which is involved all that is dear to him forever. And, there- 
fore, no more impious and cruel tyranny was ever practiced on 
earth, than that which deprives men of this dearest of all rights, 
and prevents them from discharging this most important of all 
duties. , ^ 



go ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

Religion is an affair exclusively of the mind — the understand- 
ing, the affections, and the conscience. Consequently, the attempt 
to propagate it either by civil penalties, or temporal rewards, is 
perfectly absurd. Neither the one nor the other can really en- 
lighten the understanding, mould the affections, or give direction 
to the conscience. They may, as they often have done, fill the 
church with hypocrites, whilst the honest and conscientious be- 
lievers become the subjects of oppression and persecution ; but 
they never made one sincere convert, or brought to repentance 
one back-slider. 

Besides, the power to persecute is in the majority ; and since, in 
our erring world, the great majority have always been in the wrong, 
so it has happened (and so it will happen) that error and sin 
have been patronized, and truth and righteousness oppressed and 
persecuted. Civil rulers, it is well known, are not likely to be 
either men of eminent piety, or of correct Scriptural knowledge. 
With them, religion, when at all patronized, is too commonly 
made a mere political tool ; and one party is upheld, and another 
oppressed, simply with reference to political ends. No wonder, 
then, that our Saviour and the Apostles, though strictly regardful 
of all other civil laws, rebelled most pertinaciously against those 
interfering with religious faith and practice. They w^ere as bit- 
terly denounced, and as sorely persecuted by the Jew^s and 
Romans, for their departure from the established faith, as their 
disciples have often been since, by both civil and ecclesiastical 
tyrants. 

I propose now to prove, that the fundamental doctrines and 
principles held hy the church of Rome are wholly inconsisteiit 
with the Scriptural doctrine just announced; and consequently they 
are false in religion, and ruhious in their effects upon human free- 
dom and happiness. The truth of this proposition will be estab- 
lished with the clearness of demonstration, by a careful exami- 
nation of those fundamental principles, as set forth in standard 
works, and as developed in the past history of that church. 

I. The fundamental doctrines of the church of Rome put the 
mind, with all its powers, completely in the hands of her clergy. 



ROME THE ENEMY OF LIBERTY, 91 



Consequently, they dictate its principles of action, mould its af- 
fections, direct its conscience, and thus, in all things, civil, eccle- 
siastical, moral and religious, govern every one of their followers. 
That this statement is not too strong will appear conclusively 
by the following facts : 

1st. The Council of Trent, as I proved in my first discourse, 
decreed, " that in matters of faith and morals, and whatever re- 
lates to the maintenance of Christian doctrine, no one, confiding 
in his own judgment, shall dare to wrest the sacred Scriptures to 
his own sense of them, contrary to that which hath been held, 
and still is held, by holy mother church, whose right it is to judge 
of the true meaning and interpretation of Sacred Writ ; or con- 
trary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers ; even though such 
interpretation should never be published. If any disobey, let 
them be denounced by the ordinaries, and punished according to 
law." It will be remembered, too, that Bishop Trevern announces 
it as an established principle, " that to the bishops exclusively 
belongs the right of declaring what has, or has not, been revealed ; 
that is, what is conformable or contrary to Scripture and tradition, 
or simply to one of the two." 

Now let the audience carefully weigh these fundamental prin- 
ciples of the church of Rome. To her bishops, headed by the 
pope, belongs exclusively the right of declaring what God has 
revealed to men as an article of faith, and what, as a matter of 
duty, he requires them to do. They are to declare; the people, 
the most enlightened as well as the most ignorant, are simply to 
believe and obey. "Mixed from henceforth," says Bishop Tre- 
vern, " with the simple and little ones, the most learned doctors 
lay down their private opinions, humbly confess that they were 
m error, and receive the decisions of the bishops as decrees ema- 
nating from Heaven."* So much the Roman bishops require, 
and so much the creed of Pius IV makes every one most solemnly 
promise to yield. The demand is exceeding broad. Not only in 
the matter of doctrine and morals are the bishops to be heard 
and implicitly obeyed, but also in " whatever relates to the main- 

* Arnica Discuss., v. i, p. 170. 



92 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

tenance of Christian doctrine ;" that is, in relation to their dis- 

ci])li7ie. 

Now, when a Roman Catholic has agreed to believe, as an arti- 
cle of religious faith, whatever those bishops propound as such, to 
perform whatever they announce as a moral duty, and to aid in 
carrying out all their discipline, can they not constrain him to do 
just what they please? Is not his soul completely in their 
hands ? His understanding admits as true whatever they pro- 
pound ; his heart is to approve whatever they pronounce morally 
right ; his conscience constrains him to yield them ready obe- 
dience, and his will executes their command. Suppose they 
teach him, as an article o^ faith, that heresy is a greater crime 
than theft or murder, and that, therefore, heretics ought to be put 
to death ; must he not believe the doctrine, and act accordingly ? 
He must do so, or renounce his faith. A man's religious faith 
and moral principles make him what he is — a blessing or a curse 
to the society of which he forms a part ; and he who has com- 
plete control over men in these matters, makes them just what 
he pleases. 

2d. But we have not yet a complete view of the enormous 
power of the Roman clergy over their people. They do not 
stop with convincing the people that they are perfectly blind, and 
must submit to be led by them ; but they claim a tremendous 
power to enforce their dictation and their commands — a power 
more terrible to those who admit its existence, as every Romanist 
does, than that wielded by the most cruel despot that ever tram- 
pled under foot the liberties of men. I mean, the power judi- 
daily to forgive or retain- sins. One of the most prominent doc- 
trines of the church of Rome requires every individual frequently 
to confess to a priest all his mortal sins, not generally, but par- 
ticularly. " The universal church," says the Council of Trent, 
" has always understood that a full confession of sins was insti- 
tuted by the Lord as a part of the sacrament of penance, now 
explained, and that it is necessary, by divine appointment, for all 
who sin after baptism : because our Lord Jesus Christ, when he 
was about to ascend from earth to heaven, left his priests in his 



ROME THE ENEMY OF LIBERTY. 93 

place, as presidents and judges, to whom all mortal offences into 
which the faithful might fall, should be submitted ; that they 
might pronounce sentence of remission or retention of sins by 
the power of the keys."* Here, you observe, the priests are 
represented as judges, actually forgiving or retaining sins. This 
idea is made more prominent in the following chapter, where the 
council -say, *' Again : though the priest's absolution is the dis- 
pensation of a benefit which belongs to another, yet it is not to 
be considered as merely a ministry, whether to publish the gos- 
pel, or to declare the remission of sins, but as of the nature of a 
judicial act^ in which sentence is pronounced by him as a judgeV^ 
I cannot pass this point without reading one or two extracts 
from the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which is an author- 
ized exposition of the doctrines of Rome. I quote Donovan's 
translation, revised and corrected by Bishop Hughes, of New 
York. " The voice of the priest, who is legitimately constituted a 
minister for the remission of sins, is to be heard as that of Christ 
himself, who said to the lame man, " Son be of good cheer, thy sins 
are forgiven thee." Again : " Unlike the authority given to the 
priests of the Old Law, to declare the leper cleansed from his lep- 
rosy, the power with which the priests of the New Law are invest- 
ed, is not simply to declare that sins are forgiven, but as the min- 
isters of God, really to absolve from sin ; a power which God 
himself, the author and source of grace and justification, exercises 
through their ministry." I must read one more extract, in which 
it is boldly asserted, that it is impossible to enter heaven without 
priestly absolution. " To obtain admittance into any place, the 
concurrence of him to whom the keys have been committed is 
necessary ; and therefore, as the metaphor implies, to gain ad- 
mission into heaven, its gates must be opened to us by the power 
of the keys, confided by Almighty God to the care of his church. 
This power should otherwise be nugatory : if heaven can be en- 
tered without the power of the keys, in vain shall they, to whose 
fidelity they have been entrusted, assume the prerogative of pro- 
hibiting indiscriminate entrance within its portals."! 

* Sessio xvi, cap. v, D^ Con. f Cap. vi. X pp. 180, 182, 192, 93. 



94 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

More daring presumption than is here exhibited, the lofty- 
pride and boundless ambition of man never perpetrated. It is 
true, that Jesus gave to his ministers " the keys of the kingdom 
of heaven ;" but what means this phrase, as used in the New 
Testament ? Let any one take the trouble to turn to the places 
where it occurs, and he cannot avoid the conviction, that by the 
kingdom of heaven our Saviour meant the Christian church under 
the New Dispensation. He appointed the Apostles to be minis- 
ters of his church on earth, and authorized them to preach to all 
the gospel of the Kingdom, to open the door of the church to 
those who gave credible evidence that they were qualified to 
enter ; and to close it against those of an opposite character. 
Never did the Apostles of Christ pretend to admit any one into 
heaven itself, or to exclude any from it. It remained for the lofty 
pride of the Roman clergy to put forth such impious claims ! 
But we are now concerned simply with the fact, that they have 
been set forth, and admitted by all Roman Catholics, and that 
they must be admitted by all who may become connected with 
the church of Rome. How far they are authorized by the Word 
of God, we shall inquire in another lecture. 

Let any man think for a moment, how tremendous the power 
exercised by the Roman clergy over all who admit their preten- 
sions. They propound articles of faith ; and he who questions 
one of them, is informed that the keys of heaven are in the 
hands of the clergy ; and unless he receive implicitly the dog- 
mas, his sins will not be forgiven, and he will be excluded from 
heaven. They issue their mandates ; and he who refuses or 
hesitates to obey them, however unreasonable or even monstrous 
they may appear, is informed that the doors of heaven are closed 
against his soul, that the anathema of God is upon him. The 
most exciting appeals are made to his fears and his hopes. The 
interests of eternity depend, as every Romanist believes, upon 
securing priestly absolution. And not only in the enforcement 
of what is properly called doctrine and morals is it in the power 
of the clergy to withhold absolution. Even their fallible disci- 
pliue may be enforced by the same tremendous sanctions. For 



ROME THE ENEMY OF LIBERTY. 95 

example, the Council of Trent forbid the laity to read or possess 
the Bible without a written permission from the bishop or inqui- 
sitor; and they add — " But if any one shall have the presumption 
to read or possess it without such written permission, he shall not 
receive absolution until he have first delivered up such Bible 
to the ordinary ^^^ If any one disobey the mandate of the cler- 
gy, even in matters of discipline, in which they do not claim in- 
fallibility, his soul is held under mortal sin, exposed to eternal 
torments! What proportion of Roman Catholics, suppose ye, 
would thus endanger their eternal salvation, rather than obey 
their clergy, even in matters at which all their better feelings 
revolt ? 

The truth is, the power of the pope and his clergy over their 
people, is absolutely unlimited. We have already proved that 
the popesj many of them at least, have claimed, as of divine 
right, sovereign authority over princes, and have often exercised 
this authority in absolving their subjects from their oath of alle- 
giance, and deposing them from office. We will now see what 
power is ascribed to the pope and his clergy by the Catechism of 
the Council of Trent. Of the pope it employs the following lan- 
guage: " Sitting in that chair in which Peter, the prince of the 
Apostles, sat to the close of life, the Catholic church recognizes 
in his person the most exalted degree of dignity^ and the full am- 
plitude of jurisdiction ; a dignity and a jurisdiction not based 
on synodal or other human constitutions^ but emanating from no 
less authority than God himself As the successor of St. Peter, 
and the true and legitimate vicar of Jesus Christ, he, therefore, 
presides over the Universal Church, the Father and Governor of 
all the faithful, of Bishops, also, and of all other prelates, be their 
station, rank, or power, what they may."t Do you see here any 
limitation of his power / " The most exalted degree of dignity, 
and the full amplitude of jurisdiction." What more could he 
possess or desire ? 

But let us see what power is ascribed, in the same Catechism, 
to the clergy generally. " Priests and bishops are, as it were, the 

* Index of Prohibited Books. f p. 222. 



96 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

interpreters and heralds of God, commissioned in his name to 
teach mankind the law of God, and the precepts of a Christian 
life— they are the representatives of God upon earth. Impossi- 
ble, therefore, to conceive a more exalted dignity, or functions 
more sacred. Justly^ therefore^ are they called not only angels^ 
but gods, holding as they do, the place and power^ and authority 
of God on earthy^ Roman Catholics have often complained 
that they were slandered when charged with calling the pope 
God ; but here we find it declared that not only the bishops, but 
even the priests, are justly called gods^ because they hold the 
place and power, and authority of God on earth! Who will 
presume to limit the authority of these Gods on earth? Who 
will dare rebel against the authority of men who fill the place, 
and exercise the power and authority of God % Who wdll ven- 
ture to limit their jurisdiction to spiritual things ? 

Who does not see, that every individual who admits these 
most impious claims, as every Roman Catholic does, must be- 
come a mere machine in the hands of the clergy, most blindly 
receiving all the principles they inculcate, and obeying all the 
mandates they are pleased to issue ? No wonder the pope ex- 
pects those who approach him to prostrate themselves, that they 
may enjoy the exalted privilege of kissing his great toe! No 
wonder the bishop expects his subjects to kneel and kiss his 
ring I These acts suitably indicate that blind and implicit obe- 
dience which must and will be rendered to them by every sin- 
cere Romanist. 

Was it ever known, since the fall of man, that unlimited power 
was placed in the hands of a particular class of men, without its 
being used for purposes of oppression and tyranny ? The his- 
tory of man furnishes not a solitary example. But let it not be 
forgotten, that the authority of the Roman clergy is of a peculiar 
kind — far more potent than any other. The power of other 
tyrants has extended only to the bodies and estates of men ; but 
their's lays hold of the soul, and binds its every faculty. It blinds 
the understanding, moulds the affections, directs the conscience, 

* p. 212. 



LICENTIOUSNESS OF THE ROMISH CLERGY. 97 

and enforces its mandates by all the hopes and fears of eternity. 
From the grasp of other oppressors men may escape by flight, 
and be safe ; but the terrible anathemas of these haunt the super- 
stitious soul wherever it wanders. Death, if nothing else, will 
place the oppressed beyond the grasp of all other tyrants ; but these 
profess to hold the keys of the kingdom of glory ; and the dying 
Papist is overwhelmed at the thought of departing without having 
secured from them a passport to heaven. 

And is there anything in the character of the Romish clergy 
to render this tremendous power harmless in their hands ? It is 
admitted, even by the most zealous defenders of Romanism, that 
a number of the popes, and vast numbers of the bishops, have 
been men of most infamous character. Rev. J. Reeves thus 
describes the clergy of the llth century : (A.D. 1074,) " Simony 
and incontinence had struck deep root among the clergy of Eng- 
land, Italy, Germany, and France. The evil began under those 
unworthy popes who so shamefully disgraced the tiara by their 
immoral conduct in the tenth century ; the scandal spread, and 
had now continued so long, that the inferior clergy pleaded cus- 
tom for their irregularities. Many, even of the bishops, were 
equally unfaithful to their vows, and with greater guilt."* Such 
was the torrent of licentiousness that this writer says, it " del- 
uged the Christian world." Yet, by this shameful immorality, 
the clergy, still claiming infallibiJity, and holding, professedly, the 
keys of the kingdom of heaven, lost none of their power over 
the superstitious multitude. Is it any wonder that such men em- 
ployed their tremendous power for purposes of tyranny, and for 
gain of " filthy lucre ?" And what is the character of the mass 
of the Roman clergy, now ? Is it not notorious, that in every 
country where the restraining influence of Protestantism is not 
feltj they are men, to a great extent, given to wine and licentious- 
ness ? How is it in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Mexico, South Amer- 
ica ? And are these the men in whose hands the most unlimited 
power over the people may be safely trusted ? 

II. But let us inquire iyito the avowed principles of the church 

* Reeve's Hist, of the Church, vol. i, p. 515. 
5 



98 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

of Rome, or, more properly^ of the Roman clergy^ on the subject 
of RELIGIOUS TOLERATION. We havo already proved, by Butler, 
that popes have claimed and exercised temporal authority over 
kings and other civil rulers, deposing them from their office, and ab- 
solving their subjects from their oath of allegiance; and, by Mil- 
ner, that many theologians have maintained that they have the 
right to exercise the power. In the 13th century. Innocent III, 
in accordance with the unanimous advice of the cardinals, bisb 
ops, and other members of his council, " pronounced sentence of 
deposition against John, the King of England, declaring the 
throne vacant, and his former subjects no longer bound by any 
oath of allegiance to him ;" and in terror of the Pope's anathe- 
mas, or of their effects upon his subjects, John so far degraded 
himself that he, " for the remission of his sins," as he expressed 
himself, *' resigned England and Ireland to God, to St. Peter, and 
St. Paul, to Pope Innocent and his successors in the Apostolic 
chair, and that he engaged himself and his successors to hold 
these dominions as feudatory to the church of Rome, by the 
annual payment of a thousand marks, seven hundred for Eng- 
land and three hundred for Ireland."* Other kings and emperors 
suffered in the same way. The exercise of this power, let us 
not forget, has never been condemned by the church of Rome, 
or by any general council ; nor has it ever been renounced by any 
pope. One of the last instances in which any pope ventured to 
exercise it, was in the case of Elizabeth, Queen of England, who 
was deposed, and her subjects absolved from their oaths of alle- 
giance, by Pope Pius V. " The popes, in some cases," says 
Bishop Hughes, " as that of Queen Elizabeth, did affect to release 
subjects from their allegiance."! 

We will now inquire into the principles of the Roman clergy 
concerning the rights of conscience, and the proper treatment of 
those they call heretics. We will first hear from Cardinal Bel- 
larmine, a nephew of one of the popes, and a writer of high au- 
thority in the church of Rome. I give the quotation as presented 
by Rev. Dr. J. Breckenridge, in his written discussion with 

* Hist, of Ch., V ii, pp, 77-80. f Breck. and Hughes' Discuss., p. 263. 



ROMISH PERSECUTIONS. 99 

Hughes, in reply to which that gentleman could only say, " Bellar- 
mine himself must be responsible for his opinions on this subject." 

Third Book on the Laity, ch. 21st. 

•' That heretics condemned hy the church may he punished with 
temporal penalties^ and even with death. We will briefly show that 
incorrigible heretics, and especially those who have relapsed, may 
and ought to be rejected by the church, and to be punished by 
the secular powers with temporal punishments, and even with 
death itself. In the first place, this is proved by the Scriptures. 
It is proved, secondly, by the opinions and laws of the emperors, 
which the church has always approved. It is proved, thirdly, by 
the laws of the church. Fourthly, it is proved by the testimony 
of the Fathers. Lastly, it is proved by natural reason. For, 
first, it is owned by all, that heretics may of right be excommu- 
nicated — of course they may be put to death. This consequence 
is proved, because excommunication is a greater punishment 
than temporal death. Secondly, experience proves that there is 
no other remedy; for the church has, step by step, tried all rem- 
edies — first, excommunication alone; then pecuniary penalties ; 
afterwards banishment ; and, lastly, has been forced to put them 
to death ; to send them to their own place. Thirdly, all allow 
that forgery deserves death ; but heretics are guilty of forgery of 
the Word of God. Fourthly .^ a breach of faith by man towards 
God, is a greater sin than of a wife with her husband. But the 
latter is punished with death; why not the former? Fifthly^ 
these are the grounds on which reason shows that heretics 
should be put to death: the first isj lest the wicked should 
injure the righteous ; the second is, that by the punishment of a 
few, many may be reformed. For many who were made torpid 
by impunity are roused by the fear of punishment ; and this we 
daily see is the result where the inquisition flourishes. Finally, 
it is a benefit to obstinate heretics to remove them from this life ; 
for the longer they live the more errors they invent, the more 
persons they mislead, and the greater damnation do they treasure 
up to themselves."* 

* Nos. 14 and 15, pp. 110, 115, 116. 



100 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

Such is the doctrine and such the logic of the Cardinal. He 
sustains his views, you perceive, by appealing to the " opinions 
and laws of the emperors, which," he affirms, " the church has 
always a'pprovedP He also appeals to '-'-IheAaws of the churchP 
Now he either knew that the church had approved the persecut- 
ing laws of the emperors, and had herself enacted such laws, or 
he did not. If he did not, then he was too ignorant to he a car- 
dinal or even a bishop. If he did, the question is settled, and the 
deadly enmity of the church of Rome to religious liberty is con- 
clusively proved. But Bellarmine's writings received the sanc- 
tion of the pope; and therefore there can be no question whether 
his statements concerning the laws of the church of Rome are 
correct. 

This is not all. Luther was opposed to persecution^ and he 
asserted that the church had never burned a heretic. Bellar- 
mine replies — " This argument admirably proves, not the senti- 
ment, but the ignorance or impudence of Luther ; for as almost 
an infinite number were either burned or otherwise put to death, 
Luther either did not know it, and was therefore ignorant, or if 
he knew it, he is convicted of impudence and falsehood — for that 
heretics were often burned by the church may be proved by ad- 
ducing a few from many examples."* Now one of two things 
is certainly true, viz. : either Cardinal Bellarmine was ignorant 
both of the principles and the history of his church, or it is an 
intolerant, persecuting church. It is vain to attempt to escape 
from this conclusion, as Hughes does, by saying — " Bellarmine 
himself must be responsible for his opinions on this subject ;" for 
Bellarmine states not opinions only, but facts — facts which ex- 
hibit in the clearest light the true principles of his church. He 
who has wantonly taken the life of a single man, is a murderer 
at heart; and the church that has killed "almost an infinite 
number" of those who differed from her in faith, is a bloody, per- 
secuting church. 

Peter Dens, another standard Roman writer, has, in liis Theo- 
logy, maintained similar sentiments ; and so have the Annotators 

* Ibid. 



ROMISH PERSECUTIONS. 1 1 

of the Rhemish New Testament. In a note on Luke ix, 55, 56, 
they say — " The church or Christian princes are not blamed for 
putting heretics to death." Note on Rev. xviii, 6 — <' The blood 
of heretics is not the blood of saints, no more than the blood of 
thieves, man-killers, and other malefactors — for the shedding of 
which blood by order of justice no commonwealth shall answer." 
Rev. ii, 6, 20, 22 — " He [Christ] warneth bishops to be zealous 
and stout against the false Prophets of what sort soever, by allud- 
ing covertly to the example of holy Elias, that in zeal killed four 
hundred and fifty false Prophets." 

But let us hear the bishops of Belgium on this subject. When 
the King of the Netherlands took possession of his dominions, 
and was about to grant toleration to different religious sects, they 
addressed to him a letter, from which I quote two or three ex- 
tracts. I give them as presented by Rev. Dr. J. Breckenridge, 
in his oral discussion with Hughes, and admitted by that gentle- 
man : " Sire, the existence and privileges of the Catholic church 
in this part of your kingdom are inconsistent with an article in 
the new constitution, by which equal favor and protection are 
promised to all religions." " Since the conversion of the Bel- 
gians to Christianity such a dangerous innovation has never been 
introduced into these provinces, unless by force." Again — " Sire, 
we do not hesitate to declare to your majesty, that the canonical 
laws which are sanctioned by the ancient constitutions of the 
country, are incompatible with the projected constitution which 
would give in Belgium equal favor and protection to all reli- 
gions." Again — " We are bound, sire, incessantly to preserve the 
people intrusted to our care from the doctrines which are in op- 
position to the doctrines of the Catholic church. We could not 
release ourselves from this obligation without violating our most 
sacred duties; ai^if your majesty, by virtue of a fundamental 
law, protected in these provinces the public profession and spread- 
ing of these doctrines, the progress of which we are bound to 
oppose with the care and energy which the Catholic church ex- 
pects from our office, we should be in formal opposition to the 
laws of the state, to the measures which your majesty might 



102 ROxMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

adopt to maintain them among us, and in spite of all our en- 
deavors to maintain union and peace, the public tranquillity 
might still be disturbed."* Well does Dr. Breckenridge re- 
mark, in view of these quotations from the letter of the Bel- 
gian bishops — " Here is a bold, honest position taken ; v^rith- 
out disguise they declare that wherever the laws of the state 
shall tolerate any other religion, there the Papal prelates and 
the Catholic system are necessarily opposed to those laws, and 
to the government that should maintain them." They appeal 
to the canonical laws of the church as opposed to toleration, 
and assert that they as bishops cannot discharge the duties of 
their office — cannot oppose heresy as the Catholic church expects 
them to oppose it — without opposing toleration and the constitu- 
tion of the state by which it might be granted ! If those bishops 
understood the principles of their religion — the doctrines of their 
church — then is she the deadly enemy of the liberty of con- 
science, and a persecuting church. If they misrepresented their 
church, how happens it, that they were never reproved for an 
error so injurious ? 

That both popes and general councils have passed the most 
persecuting and bloody laws against all whom they were pleased 
to denounce as heretics, has been proved in previous lectures ; 
and indeed it is admitted by the most zealous defenders of Popery. 
Dr. Crotty, Romish President of Maynooth college, Ireland, thus 
testified before the British Commissioners of Education inquiry — 
"I acknowledge that in the Councils of Lateran and Constance 
[both general councils] laws were enacted inflicting severe tem- 
poral punishments on persons who at those periods were laboring 
to subvert the Catholic faith in Europe ; that temporal lords who 
connived at, or favored the heresy, should be excommunicated ; 
and if within a year they did not give a satisfactory account of 
their conduct they should, in addition, forfeit the allegiance and 
duty of their vassals." That Crotty made this acknowledgment 
Bishop Hughes admits.! But these persecuting and bloody laws, 
we are gravely told, are no part of Catholic doctrine^ or of the 

* pp. 10^, 103. t Breck. and Hughes' Dis., pp. 99, 124. 



THE INQUISITION. 103 



Catholic religion — they are mere opinions^ not at all binding ! 
To this vain plea I reply — 1st. The church of Rome claims in- 
fallibility for all the decisions of her general councils on doc- 
trines and morals. Bishop Hughes says — ^' Every definition of 
doctrine and morals by a general council is infallible."* Now, 
whether it is right — whether it is the duty of civil rulers — -to in- 
flict temporal punishment on men, because they are denounced 
by Rome or by any other church, as heretics, is a great question 
of morals. God has said, " Thou shalt not kill." In interpret- 
ing this commandment the question just proposed is to be settled. 
Is it, or is it not a violation of this precept to inflict on men cor- 
poreal punishment, simply because they are chargeable with he- 
resy? Or is it the duty of civil rulers thus to punish those con- 
demned by the church? This most important question the Coun- 
cils of Lateran and Constance did settle. They did solemnly 
decide that it was the moral, the religious duty of civil rulers to 
inflict upon heretics corporeal punishment and even death, and 
that their neglect or refusal to do so was a sin to be visited, not 
only by excommunication, but by deposition from their offices, 
and the release of their vassals from their oath of allegiance ! It 
is worse than vain for the defenders of Romanism to attempt to 
place this great question of morals under the head of opinions^ 
concerning which God has revealed nothing distinctly ! And, let it 
be remarked, if it be a question of morals, whether it is right, and 
whether it is duty, to kill men for their religious faith; then this 
question has been repeatedly settled both by popes and general 
councils, and, as every Roman Catholic must believe, settled infal- 
libly in favor of what all but Papists call persecution ; and therefore 
it is an article of faith in that church, that it is right to punish men 
corporeally for religious error or heresy. In a country like ours 
it may be deemed expedient by the clergy not to avow this doctrine, 
or even to deny it ; but the avowal of individuals is of no weight 
against the repeated decisions of popes and general councils. 

The establishment of the inquisition by the Roman pontiffe, 
and the recognition of that horrid institution by the Council of 

* Con. of Breck. and Hughes, No. 7, p. 55. 



104 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

Trentj afTord conclusive evidence that the church of Rome is 
essentially a persecuting church. Of the origin of this institu- 
tion Devoti, a standard Roman writer, gives the following 
account : — 

^' The cause of instituting the tribunal called the Inquisition, 
was this : At first every bishop in his own diocese, or a number 
of bishops assembled in a provincial council, made inquisition of 
those errors which arose in the diocese or province ; but the more 
weighty matters were always referred to the Apostlic See. * * * 
But when new errors daily sprung up, and the number of heretics 
was greatly increased, seeing that the legates [appointed by the 
pope] could not always be at hand nor apply the proper remedy, 
it was determined to institute a standing tribunal that should 
always be present, and at all times, and in every country, should 
devote their minds to preserving the soundness of the faith, and 
to restraining and expelling heresies as they arose. Thus it was 
that the Inquisitors were first appointed to perform the office of 
Vicars to the Holy See. But — as in a matter so weighty as the 
preservation of the faith, the Inquisitors needed that close union 
of mind and sentiment which is proper to the Apostolic See, as 
the center of unity, there was instituted at Rome, by the pope, 
an assembly or congregation of cardinals in which the pope 
presides. This congregation is the head of all the Inquisitors 
over the whole world, to it they all refer their more difficult mat- 
ters, and its authority and judgment are final. It is rightly and 
wisely ordered that the pope's office and power should sustain 
this institution, for he is the centre of unity and head of the 
church ; and to him Christ has committed plenary power to feed, 
teach, rule, and govern all Christians."* 

Such is the account given by Devoti of this cruel and detest- 
able institution, and adnnitted by Bishop Hughes to be correct. 
I cannot now undertake to give any extended account of the 
Inquisition, of its gloomy dungeons, its racks, its tortures, and its 
Autos da /(?, by which so many thousands have suffered tortures 

* Canonical Institutes, under head — ^Inquisitors of Heretical Purity. See 
Breck. and Hughes' Discuss, pp. 176, 212, 213. 



THE INQUISITION. 105 



the most cruel, and death in its most terrific forms. No one can 
read its history, as given by the Roman Catholics themselves, 
without being convinced that, much of cruelty as the history of 
our world records, yet the Romish Inquisition is incomparably the 
most cruel, the most horrible institution ever known among men, 
When, in 1814, the question was agitated before the Spanish 
Cortes, whether the Inquisition should be abolished in Spain, a 
book wa5 written by D. Antonio Puigblanch, a Spaniard, urging 
its abolition. This author, who had the opportunity of making 
himself thoroughly acquainted with it, having had access to the 
records of several branches of the institution, thus remarks — 
"Were any one ignorant of the spirit of Christianity, to hear 
that the most terrible tribunal ever known was under the charge 
of priests, calling themselves the most zealous ministers of reli- 
gion, how would he be induced to believe that this same religion 
is pre-eminent for its meekness? " 

I must not omit to give this author's account of the mode of 
arresting those accused of heresy — " The summary impeachment 
being concluded, it is laid before the Supreme Council, and its 
approbation being obtained, the arrest is carried into execution. 
This is given in charge to the high bailifij who executes his 
commission by carrying with him a competent number of minis- 
ters, taking the necessary precautions to surprise the culprit, 
which is generally done at night The law prescribes that the 
receiver and notary of sequestrations should also be present at 
the arrest, for in this tribunal confiscation forms an essential part 
of the process. The party then sets out, and dread and conster- 
nation seize on the culprit and his family. The thunderbolt 
launched from the black and angry cloud strikes not with such 
alarm as the sound of ^Deliver yourself up a prisoner of 
THE Inquisition.' Astonished and trembling, the unwary citizen 
hears the dismal voice, a thousand different affections at once 
seize upon his panic-struck frame — he remains perplexed and 
motionless. His life in danger, his deserted wife and orphan 
children, eternal infamy, the only patrimony that now awaits his 
bereft family, are all ideas which rush on his mind — he is at 



106 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

once agitated by an agony of dilemma and despair. The burn- 
ing tear scarcely glistens on his livid cheek, the accents of woe 
die on his lips, and amidst the alarm and desolation of his family, 
and the confusion and pity of his neighbors, he is borne away to 
dungeons, whose damp and bare walls can alone witness the 
anguish of his mind."* This is t'he beginning of his sorrows. 
The torture by the pulley, or the rack, or the fire awaits him ; 
and if he survive this, his next public appearance may be at the 
Auto da fe, to be burned as an incorrigible heretic. The num- 
ber of victims of the Inquisition v/ill never be known till the Day 
of Judgment. D. J. A. Llorente, once a Secretary of the Inqui- 
sition, gives the number condemned and burnt in Spain from 
A. D. 1481— 31,912.— Burned in effigy, 17,695.— Placed in a 
state of penance with rigorous punishments, 291 450. — Total 
341,057. 

This detestable institution, which claims popes as its Fathers, 
and cardinals, bishops, and priests as its principal officers, was 
fully recognized by the Council of Trent. In prohibiting the 
indiscriminate reading of the Bible by the people, they leave it 
" to the judgment of the bishops, or inquisitors," to grant or 
refuse permission to those applying. And throughout their Index 
Expurgatorius, bishops and inquisitors are to superintend the 
publication and sale of books ! Would that Council have thus 
recognized the office of inquisitors, and, consequently, the Inqui- 
sition itself, if they had not approved of it ? If they had pos- 
sessed one particle of the spirit of Christianity, would they not 
have abolished and anathematized it ? 

It is a fact — an instructive fact- — that the Inquisition, expelled 
from all other countries by the indignant people, is still cherished 
at Rome ! Said Bishop Hughes, in his debate with Dr. J. Breck- 
enridge, " Now the fact is, and it argues great ignorance not to 
know it, that, at this day, out of the city of Rome, the Inquisition 
does not exist, either in fact or in name — either civilly or ecclesi- 
astically — in any country under the sun."t It originated in 
Rome ; and it is fitting that, when driven from every other coun- 

* Inquisition Unmasked, v. i, ch. 4. f p. 170. 



THE INQUISITION. 107 



try, detested for its horrid cruelty, it should find an asylum there, 
and enjoy the protection of the pope and his cardinals! But 
why is it confined to Rome ? Is it because the Roman clergy 
are the friends of liberty of conscience ? Why then, is it still 
cherished there ? Why is no voice raised against it 1 Why no 
demand for its final suppression ? 

There is one evidence of the favor the Inquisition has found 
among the Roman clergy, which I must not omit. The Brevia- 
ry, it is well known, is emphatically the clergy'' s book. It has 
received the sanction of the church ; and it is a part of the daily 
duty of every priest and bishop to read, or recite, some portion 
of it. In this book are recorded, for their edification, the vir- 
tuous deeds of departed saints. Among these is numbered Pius 
V, concerning whom it is related, that '' for a long time he sus- 
tained the office of Inquisitor, with inviolable fortitude of mind ; 
he preserved many cities from heresy then spreading, not without 
danger of his life. He was promoted by Paul IV, to whom, on 
account of his great virtues, he was very dear, to the Episcopal 
See of Nepessinum and Sutrinum, and two years afterwards he 
was numbered among the cardinals of the Roman Church. * 

* * His body is worshipped with great veneration of the 
faithful in the Basilic of St. Mary and Praesepe — many miracles 
having been obtained of God through his intercession. Die V 
Maii.^^ Such are the saints who are held up as an example to 
be imitated by the Roman clergy of this country — men who, in 
their furious persecution of heretics, have even periled their own 
lives ! Such are the saints whom they worship, and to whom 
they offer daily prayers ! It is by teaching of this kind they 
are to become the friends of religious liberty ! 

It is worse than vain for the Roman clergy of this country to 
attempt to escape the odium so justly resting upon the Inquisi- 
tion, by saying as does Bishop Hughes, that the Inquisition con- 
stitutes no part of the Roman Catholic religion. It constitutes 
an important part of that infernal machinery by which the Roman 
system has sought to sustain itself against the spreading light of 
God's Word. No part of religion, indeed ! And, pray, what 



108 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

are we to think of a religion which not only permits, but even 
incites, its most zealous advocates to perpetrate, in the name of 
the Prince of Peace, the horrid cruelties by which the entire his- 
tory of the Inquisition has been marked ? Nay, more ; that 
claims for the very men engaged in this fiendish work, divine 
inspiration ! 

Nor will it answer to charge the cruelties of the Inquisition 
upon the civil power. The pope and his cardinals, as we have 
seen, not only originated it, but they constitute its supreme court. 
Roman clergymen have ever filled its most important offices ; and 
the civil rulers, who have given it countenance, were obedient sons 
of the church, who acted in accordance with her desires. Its 
cruelties have been as great in Italy and Rome, as elsewhere ; and 
there it still finds support. The truth is, and it is vain to attempt 
to conceal it, the pope and his clergy are wholly responsible for 
all its blood, and torture, and death. 

Concerning the Inquisition Bishop Hughes said — <' It may 
have been a good institution — abused ! ! ! "* The Roman cler- 
gy of this country read this language; but not one of them 
either reproved him, or disavowed the sentiment. What is 
the unavoidable inference ? I leave this intelligent audience to 
answer. 

What were the sentiments of Gregory XVI, the last Pope who 
has spoken on these subjects, with regard to civil and religious lib- 
erty? No longer ago than A. D. 1832, he addressed his Ency- 
clical Letter " to all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bish- 
ops." In this letter we find the following language concerning 
that dearest of all the rights God has given to man — liberty of 
conscience : 

" From this polluted fountain of ' Indifference/ flows that 
absurd and erroneous doctrine, or rather raving, in favor and 
defence of ' liberty of conscience ; ' for which most pestilential 
error the course is opened by that entire and wild liberty of 
opinion, which is everywhere attempting the overthrow of reli- 
* Breckenridge and Hughes' Con., No. xxxiv, p. 304. 



ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF GREGORY XVL 109 

gious and civil institutions ; and which the unblushing impu- 
dence of some has held forth as an advantage to religion." 

Again — " Hither tends that worst and never sufficiently to be 
execrated and detested liberty of the press, for the diffusion of all 
manner of writings, which some so loudly contend for and so 
actively promote. We shudder, venerable brethren, at the sight 
of the monstrous doctrines, or rather portentous errors, which 
crowd upon us in the shape of numberless volumes and pamph- 
lets, small in size, but big with evils, which stalk forth in every 
direction ; breathing a malediction we deplore, over the face of 
the earth. Yet there are not wanting, alas ! those who carry 
their effi'onteTy so far, as to persist in maintaining that this amal- 
gamation of errors is sufficiently resisted, if in this inundation of 
bad books, a volume now and then issue from the press in favor 
of religion and truth. But is it not a crime, then, never sufficiently 
to be reprobated, to commit the deliberate and greater evil, merely 
with the hope of seeing some good arise out of it ? Or is that 
man in his senses, who entrusts poison to every hand, exposes it 
at every mart, suffers it to be carried about on all occasions, aye, 
and to become a necessary ingredient in every cup, because an 
antidote may afterwards be procured which chance may render 
effective ? " 

Let it not be thought that Gregory is here giving only his 
private opinions. He appeals to his "predecessors of bappy 
memory" and to the infallible church to sustain him. Hear him 
— " Far other has been the discipline of the church in extirpat- 
ing this pest of bad books, even as far back as the times of the 
Apostles, who, we read, committed a great number of books 
publicly to the flames. It is enough to read the laws passed in 
the Fifth Council of Lateran on this subject, and the constitu- 
tion afterward promulgated by our predecessor of happy memory, 
Leo X, ' that what was wholesomely invented for the increase of 
faith, and for the extension of useful arts, may not be diverted to 
a contrary purpose, and become an obstacle to the salvation of 
Christ's faithful.' The subject engaged the closest attention of 
the Fathers of the Council of Trent, and as a remedy to so great 



110 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

an evilj they passed that most salutary decree for forming an index 
of the works in which depraved doctrine was contained. ' No 
means must be here omitted,' says Clement XIII, our predecessor 
of happy memory, in the Encyclical Letter on the proscription 
of bad books — * no means must be here omitted, as the extremity 
of the case calls for all our exertions, to exterminate the fatal 
pest which spreads through so many works ; nor can the materials 
of error be otherwise destroyed than by the flames, which con- 
sume the depraved elements of the evil.' From the anxious 
vigilance, then, of the holy Apostolic See, through every age, in 
condemning and removing from men's hands suspected and pro- 
fane books, becomes more than evident the falsity, the rashness, 
and the injury offered to the Apostolic See by that doctrine, preg- 
nant with the most deplorable evils to the Christian world, 
advocated by some, condemning this censure of books as a need- 
less burden, rejecting it as intolerable, or with infamous effrontery 
proclaiming it to be irreconcilable with the rights of men, or 
denying, in fine, the right of exercising such a power, or the 
existence of it in the Church." 

Thus \^TOte Gregory XVI, the last Pope who spoke on the 
subjects involved in this discussion; thus did he write no longer 
ago than 1832. That he was an uncompromising enemy of 
liberty of conscience, and that he greatly desired to have the 
press under the censorship of the Roman clergy, and the reading 
of the people controled by them, is perfectly clear. This is not 
all. Most anxiously did he desire, what the Church of Rome 
has ever sought — the union of Church and State. Hear him on 
this subject: 

" Nor can we augur more consoling consequences, to religion 
and to government, from the zeal of some to separate the church 
from the state, and to burst the bond which unites the priesthood 
to the empire. For it is clear, that this union is dreaded by the 
profane lovers of liberty, only because it has never failed to con- 
fer prosperity on both." 

As already remarked, the Pope, in this letter, does not express 
his opinions as an individual. He appeals to his predecessors in 



CLERGY OF THE UNITED STATES. HI 

the chair of St. Peter, and to general councils, as having held 
and taught the same principles. If, therefore, he was not 
strangely ignorant of the true spirit and principles of the church 
over which he presided (and surely this will not be pretended), 
then the church of Rome and her clergy are most irreconcilable 
enemies of civil and religious liberty. Destroy the liberty of the 
press, take away liberty of conscience, and unite the church and 
state, and what, I ask, remains of the boasted liberty of the Unit- 
ed States 1 Nothing — literally nothing. Yet the pope and his 
clergy aim at nothing short of this ! 

We have looked into the doctrines and prindples of the Roman 
clergy ; let us now consider, for a moment, the practical work- 
ings of the system. Is there now a country where Popery pre- 
vails, in which religious liberty is enjoyed ? How is it in Italy, 
Spain, Portugal, Austria, South America, Mexico ? In every one 
of these countries, church and state are united — Popery is the 
established religion, and no other is tolerated. " By their fruits 
ye shall know them." Even in our day, in the island of Ma- 
deira, a number of persons who have professed the Protestant 
religion, together with Dr. Kalley their faithful minister, are suf- 
fering the most violent persecution ; not by means of intolerant 
laws, but by mobs formed by Romanists, and headed by their 
clergy. Those devoted people, with their minister, have been 
compelled to save their lives by leaving their homes and country. 
Such is Roman Catholic toleration ! 

But, it will be asked, are not the Roman clergy of this country 
friends of our free institutions ? I reply — 1st. A large propor- 
tion of them are foreigners, reared and educated in Papal coun- 
tries, who, from their very birth, have imbibed despotic principles. 
Can it be expected that a voyage across the ocean will revolu- 
tionize their views? 2d. The clergy of this country are subject 
to the clergy of the church generally, the great body of whom 
are known to be the enemies of our free institutions. What, 
then, can they do, even on the supposition that they are friendly 
to civil and religious liberty ? 3d. But every Roman Catholic is 
pledged to have his religion established by law, as far as possible ; 



112 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

for they have all made the following promise ; '* I acknowledge 
the holy Catholic and Apostolical Roman church, the mother and 
mistress of all churches ; and I promise and swear true obe- 
dience to the Roman bishop, the successor of St. Peter, the 
prince of the Apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ. I also pro- 
fess and undoubtedly receive all other things delivered, defined, 
and declared by the sacred canons and general councils, and par- 
ticularly by the holy Council of Trent; and likewise, I also con- 
demn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all 
heresies whatsoever, condemned, rejected, and anathematized by 
the church." Here we find every Roman Catholic pledged to 
true obedience to the pope, and to hold all things delivered by 
the general councils — persecuting decrees as well as definitions 
of doctrine ! This is not all. We have stiU another pledge : 
" This true Catholic faith, out of which none can be saved, which 
I now freely profess and truly hold, I, N., promise, vow, and 
swear most constantly to hold and profess the same, whole and 
entire, with God's assistance, to the end of my life ; and to pro- 
cure, as far as lies in my power ^ tho.t the same shall he held, taught^ 
and preached by all who are under me^ or are intrusted to my care^ 
by virtue of my office. So help me God, and these holy gospels of 
God.^^* Ponder this well, and understand its obvious and only 
meaning ! If any doubt remain, let the history of the church 
interpret the language. 

But the Encyclical letter of Gregory XVI, as we have seen, 
breathes the spirit of tyranny and persecution. How was it 
received by the Roman clergy of the United States 1 It was 
published by the « Catholic Diary and Register f' of New York^ 
with the following commendation : 

"The Encyclical Letter of Pope Gregory XVI, which is 
inserted on the first page of this day's Register, will, no doubt, 
arrest the attention of our readers, and elicit that fervent regard 
to the sentiments which are there found embodied, and which are 
so worthy of the Father of the Catholic world." 

And whilest the priests of New York thus commended the 
* Creed of Pius IV. 






POPERY THE ENEMY OF LIBERTY. 113 

sentiments of this letter, worthy of the darkest of the dark ages, 
not a voice was raised in the ranks of the Roman clergy of Amer- 
ica, in opposition to any sentiment it contains ! This is not all. 
Bishop Hughes, in his reply to Dr. Breckenridge's remarks on 
the Encyclical Letter, thus discourses: "Finally, he adduces the 
Encyclical Letter of the present Pope. Well, what does he find 
in it, except a praise-worthy solicitude to preserve the truth of God 
pure, in hooks of doctrine^ as well as preaching ; complaints that 
the world is inundated with had hooks ^ to the corruption of faith 
and morals, and the destruction of souls. The Pope asserts that 
those who recognize the spiritual authority of the church [he 
makes no such limitation] are wicked in denying her right to 
exercise censorship over books," &c.* Not a sentiment in the 
Letter does the Bishop disapprove ; although it bitterly denounces 
liberty of conscience and the freedom of the press^ and pleads for 
-the union of church and state ! All this, in his view, is " praise- 
worthy!" But is he really in favor of the freedom of the press? 
No — for in justifying the Council of Trent in its opposition to it, 
he says : " But when the press became the irresponsible agent of 
mischief in the hands of wicked men, who employed it to corrupt 
the Scriptures, to excite the people to sedition^ to disseminate 
FALSEHOOD instead of truth — the natural law of self-preservation, 
both in church and state, dictated the necessity of restricting the 
freedom of the press within such limits as would render it com- 
patible with the safety of society."! Such are the sentiments 
of Bishop Hughes, of New York, one of the most popular and 
influential bishops in the United States. Suppose these carried 
into practice in our country, what would be the result ? Wicked 
men, he says, employed the press to corrupt the Scriptures ; there- 
fore, the press must be placed under the censorship of the Roman 
clergy. Papists charge Protestants with doing the same thing. 
How soon would Bishop Hughes, if he had power, stop the print- 
ing-presses that are now throwing out thousands of copies of the 
Bible daily. Again — he says, the press was used to disseminate 
FALSEHOOD instead of truth ; and therefore it must be restrained, 

* Breckenridge and Hughes' Discussion, p. 58. t Ibid., p. 86. 

5 * 



114 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 



and put under the censorship of the Roman clergy. How soon, 
had he power, would every Protestant printing press in this free 
country be stopped. Sentiments such as these suit Rome or Spain 
far better than America. 

But what are the sentiments of Bishop Hughes relative to the 
establishment, by law, of the Roman Catholic religion ? In the 
oral discussion, between him and Dr. J. Breckenridge, the latter 
gentleman put to him the following plain question: ^^ Had the 
majority in Italy^ or Spain^ a right to establish the Catholic reli- 
gion hy law .?" This is a very simple question, easily answered, 
one would think, by any true friend of the rights of conscience, 
more especially by any American citizen. The majority in those 
countries, being Roman Catholics, did, as a matter of fact, estab- 
lish by law, their religion, and required all, under civil pains and 
penalties, to adopt and conform to it, regardless of their conscien- 
tious convictions. Either they had the right to do this, or they 
had not. If it be admitted that they had, or could have such a 
right; the principle is admitted and maintained, that a majority 
may of right, at least under some circumstances, disregard the 
religious convictions of a minority, and punish them civilly and 
corporeally for not believing as they believe. This principle is 
the foundation of all persecution on account of religion. Carried 
out in practice, it has persecuted unto death tens of thousands, of 
many of whom the world was not worthy, and established the 
most impious and odious tyranny. 

What was the Bishop's reply to this plain question ? Hear it, 
and ponder it well, ye who imagine that the Roman clergy of 
the United States are friends of our free institutions. " Finally, he 
[Breckenridge] asks me my opinion about the right of the major- 
ity in Spain, or Italy, to establish the Catholic religion by 
LAW. I answer that, in my opinio?ij if the majority in Italy, or 
Spain, by doing so, violated no civil or religious right of the mi- 
nority j they had, in that case^ the right to establish the Catholic 
religion by law. But if, in order to establish it, they violated 
any righi^ sacred or civil, of the minority, then, in that case, they 



POPERY THE ENEMY OF LIBERTY. 115 

had no right to establish the Catholic religion by law."* Observe, 
the Bishop admits, that in those countries there were minorities op- 
posed to the Romish religion. And although with the skill of a 
Jesuit he seeks to evade the question, which, had he been in favor 
of liberty of conscience, he would have gloried in answering in 
the most unequivocal manner ; yet he betrays, despite of himself, 
the cloven foot. For he indirectly but clearly intimates, that 
there are cases, and that those of Spain and Italy may be such, 
in which a majority may force their religious faith upon the mi 
nority. This, I repeat, is the principle of tyranny and persecu 
tion. But why does the Bishop cumber his answer with so many 
ifs. Was he really so ignorant of the history of Italy and Spain 
that he could not form a judgment concerning their laws and 
their persecutions? Or, is it not clear to every man of common 
sense, that he believes Papists have the right, wherever they have 
the power, to establish their religion by law, and require all to 
conform to it, but that he fears to avow his real sentiments ? Nor 
is he peculiar in this respect. The Roman clergy of this country 
never were known to condemn the persecuting laws of Spain, 
Italy, and other countries under Roman influence. Well did 
Breckenridge reply to Hughes — that " the American principle, 
and the Bible doctrine, is, that it is violating the rights of a mi- 
nority to establish any religion hy law ! That no majority can, 
in any possible case, of right ^ do such a thing !" This Ameri- 
can, this Scriptural principle. Bishop Hughes, when distinctly 
called on to avow his sentiments, refused to sanction ! 

In reply to all this, it may be said, Protestants, too, have per- 
secuted. I answer— 1st. We acknowledge that, in some in- 
stances, they have persecuted ; and we condemn their conduct 
herein. Moreover, we admit that these persecutions proved them 
fallible. But the Roman clergy evade the question, when asked 
whether in Italy and Spain the majority had the right to establish 
their religion by law ; and whilst constrained to admit that popes 
and general councils have enacted persecuting laws, and by reli- 
gious rewards and penalties excited their people to murder those 

* p. 165. 



116 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

whose faith differed from theirs ; they yet claim for these same 
men the extraordinary prerogative of infallibility! 2d. If there 
be, in this country, a Protestant denomination that has held per- 
secuting principles, and has never as a body renounced them, 
I will place no confidence in them. Such a body would be 
justly regarded as decidedly unfriendly to the free institutions of 
our country. The church of Rome has enacted persecuting 
laws, has established the most cruel institution ever known in this 
world, has excited civil rulers to persecutions the most horrible. 
The last of the popes who spoke on the subject did most earnest- 
ly contend that those persecuting laws were right. His encycli- 
cal letter was received and approved by the Roman clergy of this 
country. They say not a word against the intolerance which 
now prevails universally in Roman countries. The church of 
Rome, therefore, having never renounced her persecuting princi- 
ples, and boasting that she never changes, is justly held respon- 
sible for them — is justly regarded as a persecuting, intolerant 
church, and her clergy as decidedly unfriendly to the institutions 
of our country. 

It matters not what may be the private sentiments of individual 
members, or even of individual bishops, of the church of Rome ; 
the power is in the hands of the pope and the body of his clergy ; 
and they can constrain obedience to their mandates. At this very 
day, every Roman bishop in the United States can cast as many 
votes in our elections as he has voters in his diocese. He has only 
to inform them that it is their religious duty — their duty to the 
church — to vote in a particular way. They stand solemnly 
pledged to obey their clergy in matters of faith and morals. The 
pope and his council can give secret directions which must be 
obeyed in this country, both by clergy and people. 

I oppose the church of Rome, not only because of her soul- 
destroying errors in religion, but because civil and religious lib- 
erty wither wherever her influence prevails. I hold to the Pro- 
testant rule of faith — the holy Bible — not only because it is a 
lamp to our feet and a light to our path, to guide us safely to 
heaven, but because it teaches that every man is accountable to 



POPERY THE ENEMY OF LIBERTY. 117 

God for his religious faith and moral conductj and thus strikes at 
the very fundamental principle of all persecuting tenets ; and be- 
cause, wherever it is received, civil and religious liberty must and 
will be enjoyed. 

It would be easy to show how the doctrines of the church of 
Rome degrade the people intellectually and morally, and destroy 
the prosperity of every country where they prevail. Need I do 
more than point this intelligent audience to the present state of 
every Roman Catholic country in the world ? Look at Italy, the 
head quarters of the Romish religion. There no Protestant in- 
fluence has been permitted to effect the character of the people, 
or the prosperity of the country. Yet the civil government is 
one of the worst in the world ; and the people are ignorant, poor, 
degraded. Would you know what has become of the wealth of 
the country? Go to the splendid churches which everywhere 
are to be seen ; and then look at the coffers of the clergy. Look 
at Spain, once one of the most powerful kingdoms in the world. 
Wasted and almost destroyed by one of the most ferocious and 
protracted civil wars ever known, she now lies in ruins. Her 
people miserably poor, her country overrun with innumerable 
banditti^ revolutions and insurrections the order of the day, her 
glory is departed, and she stands before the world a most in- 
structive example of the withering, degrading, ruinous influence 
of Popery. Look at Portugal. Her condition almost as hope- 
less as that of Spain, and for the same cause. Austria is quiet, 
because the people are sunk in ignorance, and bound down by 
the iron grasp of tyranny. Go to Mexico and South America, 
and there learn the character of that influence which Popery 
everyw^here exerts. Contrast the countries where Romanism 
prevails with those where the Protestant religion has exerted a 
controlling influence. Where do you find, in the masses of the 
people, the greatest amount of intelligence and morality ? Where 
do you find most of civil and religious liberty? Where do you 
find the greatest amount of general prosperity ? I cheerfully 
leave this audience to answer these important questions. 



I 



CHRIST THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH. ] 19 



LECTURE V. 

Eph. V, 23. " For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the 
head of the church." 

There are several figures by which the Scriptures illustrate 
the relation of Christ Jesus to his church, her dependence upon 
him and her obligations to him. He is the head of the church, 
as the husband is the head of the wife. He is her guide and 
protector, to whose commands she yields a willing and delightful 
obedience. He is the bridegroom — she, the bride. And as the 
wife can have but one husband^ so the church can have but one 
head. The church is his body^ united to him by a true faith, 
controled by him, and enjoying by virtue of that union spiritual 
life. " Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particu- 
lar." And as the human body cannot have two heads, so cannot 
the church, the body of Christ. 

Again — Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church. The 
foundation of a building is that on which it stands firmly, and is 
supported when the rain descends, and the floods come, and the 
winds blow and beat upon it. So is Jesus Christ the foundation 
of his church, for two important reasons. 

1. By his obedience unto death he laid the foundation of the 
hopes of his people for eternal life. Take from the gospel the 
one great truth, that Jesus Christ died for the sins of his people — 
bear them in his own body on the tree, and divine justice would 
sweep them all into eternal ruin. "For all have sinned and 
come short of the glory of God." 

2. By his infinite power Jesus Christ upholds his church, and 
defends it against all its enemies ; so that " the gates of hell shall 
not prevail against it." To his ministers he says — " Lo, I am 
with you always, even unto the end of the world;" and to his 
church — " No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper." 



120 ROxMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

As a house can have but one foundation ; so of the church 
Paul says — " Other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, 
which is Jesus Christ." 

To the general statement, that Christ Jesus is the head and 
the foundation of his church, Roman Catholics, much as they 
have perverted and corrupted the doctrines of the cross, would 
not, perhaps, object. But they hold that the church has also 
another head and foundation. They believe that the Apostle 
Peter was made " the Prince of the Apostles," the visible head 
and foundation of the universal church ; and that the Pope of 
Rome, as the legitimate successor of Peter, is the Vicar of 
Jesus Christ, having "full power," as Butler says, "to feed, reg- 
ulate, and govern the universal church, as expressed in the gene- 
ral councils and holy canons." " This," says he, "is the doctrine 
of the Roman Catholic church on the authority of the pope.' 
The same author represents the pope as having — "' 1st. A su- 
premacy of rank ; 2d. A supremacy of jurisdiction in the spirit- 
ual concerns of the Roman Catholic church ; 3d. The principal 
authority in defining articles of faith." * According to the Cate- 
chism of the Council of Trent, he possesses "the most exalted 
degree of dignity, and the full amplitude of jurisdiction." t The 
pope is, in the view of Papists, " the centre of unity ; " and to be 
separated from the chair of St. Peter is to be guilty of schism or 
rank heresy. 

Let us proceed to inquire whether these claims of the Pope of 
Rome are valid. That we may come to a safe conclusion, I will 
state two or three important principles which, I think, will com- 
mend themselves to every reflecting mind, viz. : — 

I. The doctrine of the pope's supremacy, if true, is of funda- 
mental importance to the organization, and even to the existence 
of the church ; and therefore it must be so clearly revealed as to 
satisfy without doubt every candid mind. In the Book of Nature 
there are mysteries beyond the comprehension of the most pro- 
found philosopher ; and there are many truths in the discovery 
of which the learned may find abundant employment. But 

* Book of the Church, tet. x. t p. 222. 



CHRIST THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH. 121 

those truths which are most important, which are essential to the 
preservation of life, lie, as it were, on the surface, and can be suffi- 
ciently understood by the unlearned. They, as well as the learned 
philosopher, can pursue the useful avocations of life, and provide 
for their families the necessaries and even the luxuries of life. 
And the same may be affirmed of the Book of Revelation, whose 
author is the God of Nature. The most learned theologian may 
spend his days and call into requisition all his powers in search- 
ing into its rich treasures, without exhausting them ; but the fun- 
damental doctrines of the gospel are so plainly revealed, and so 
variously illustrated, that the unlearned may read or hear, and 
understand, and be saved. The way of life — ^' the king's high- 
way of holiness " — is made so plain, that the wayfaring man, 
though a fool, need not err therein. 

If, then, the church is the divinely appointed guide of God's 
people in religious matters, whatever is essential to her complete 
organization must be ascertainable by every candid and impartial 
inquirer. This principle is not only admitted, but contended for 
by Bishop Milner, in his End of Controversy. In attempting to 
establish the Roman rule of faith, he lays down the two follow- 
ing maxims: " The rule of faith appoiyited by Christ must be 
CERTAIN and UNERPciNG ] that is to say, it must be one which is not 
liable to lead any rational and sincere inquirer into inconsistency 
or error : thirdly ^ this rule must be universal — that is to say, it 
must be proportioned to the abilities and circumstances of the 
great bulk of mankind,^ ^ * The rule cannot be certain and 
adapted to the abilities and circumstances of the great bulk of 
mankind, unless whatever is essential to that rule be very clearly 
revealed. The conclusion is unavoidable, that the doctrine of 
the pope's supremacy, if true, must be supported by evidence the 
most clear and convincing. 

2d. This doctrine, if proved at all, must be proved by the 

Scriptures only, and by what Roman Catholics call the private 

interpretation of Scripture. In attempting to prove any fact or 

proposition, it is of the first importance to determine on what 

* Let. viii, p. 33. 



122 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 



evidence we can legitimately rely. In the present inquiry the 
traditions of the church can afford us no assistance. For, since 
those traditions are in the keeping of the church, and their au- 
thority depends upon her infallibility, we cannot receive her tes- 
timony on any point of faith, until we are satisfied that she is 
prepared to speak by inspiration. But without her head, the 
pope, she is confessedly not infallible. There cannot be a gen- 
eral council, unless it be called by him, and either he or his rep- 
resentative preside over its deliberations. " No council," says 
Bishop Hughes, '' is general or oecumenical, without the pope's 
concurrence."* The church, therefore, cannot bear testimony to 
a matter which appertains to her organization. Her testimony is 
confessedly not infallible till her organization is complete. Shall 
we, then, ask the church whether Peter the Apostle was divinely 
appointed her visible head ? Who shall answer the question 1 
The church without her head, to whom, as we have seen, belongs 
"the chief authority in defining articles of faith," and in whom, 
of course, chiefly resides her infallibility ? Surely not. Then 
her traditions are of no value in deciding the question now under 
consideration. And for the same reason, that is, because without 
the pope she is not infallible, her interpretation of Scripture can- 
not be relied on. In inquiring into the validity of the pope's 
claims to supremacy, therefore, we must come to the Scriptures, 
and examine into their teaching. No man can consistently be- 
come a Roman Catholic, except upon a careful examination of 
the sacred Scriptures on this point. 

But here we meet an insuperable difficulty; for the Roman 
clergy tell us that those who rely on their own judgment to de- 
termine the meaning cf the Scriptures, can never come to a cer- 
tain and safe conclusion — ''cannot make an act of faith.' '^ In 
the name of common sense, then, how shall we ascertain whether 
the pope is the divinely appointed head of the church ? When- 
ever men begin to change and improve God's Word, and to build 
up a system of their own, they will certainly involve themselves 
in contradictions. This is most manifestly true of the church of 
* Cath. Con., Let vji, p. 55. f End of Con., Let. ix, p, 50. 



CHRIST THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH. 123 

Rome. Her bishops tell us she cannot be an infallible guide 
without her head, the pope ; and yet they assure us that we can- 
not determine with any certainty, by the Scriptures, whether the 
pope is the divinely appointed head of the church ! 

We will now enter upon the inquiry whether the Scriptures 
afford any evidence that Peter was appointed " to feed, regulate, 
and govern the universal church." For if Peter had no such 
office as that claimed by the pope as his successor, of course the 
claims of the latter are false. 

I. The first argument we offer against the doctrine of the 
pope's supremacy is, that the qualifications necessary to the office^ 
and the nature and extent of the powers conferred by it, are con- 
fessedly undefined and indefinable. We may certainly affirm, 
without fear of successful contradiction, that if the infinitely wise 
Saviour had appointed in his church an office of so incalculable 
importance, both to the church and the world, and so capable of 
being abused to the great dishonor of religion, to the eternal ruin 
of the souls of men, and to the infinite injury of the world, he 
would have stated with great clearness, the qualifications to be 
possessed by the incumbent, and defined the kind and extent of 
the powers to be exercised by him. Under the Old Dispensa- 
tion God appointed the Levitical priesthood ; and most distinctly 
did he point out their qualifications and their powers. He ap- 
pointed a civil government, and he gave a code of laws according 
to which it was to be administered. And when he permitted the 
people to elect a king — a new office being created which was lia- 
ble to great abuse — Samuel " told the people the manner of the 
kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the Lord."* 
And in anticipation of such an event as the appointment of a 
king, Moses had long before pointed out the qualifications he 
must possess, and the general limits of his authority.! 

Now, is it true, that the qualifications to be possessed by the 
man who shall fill the office of pope are pointed out ? Are the 
limits of his authority fixed ? Both these questions must be an- 
swered negatively. It is a fact not denied by Romanists, that 

* 1 Samuel x, 25. t Deut. xvii, 14. 



124 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

there are two great parties in the church of Rome who differ 
widely concerning the pope's qualifications for his office. Is he, 
when he speaks officially, an inspired and infallible man ? Yes, 
— say the Transalpine bishops. No — say the Cisalpines ; he may 
err, and may be deposed for schism or heresy. This is a wide 
difference ; a difference not merely theoretical, but practical. Is 
the pope above a general council ? Yes — says one large party. 
No — says the other ; he is inferior to a general council, and may 
be deposed by such a council. Has the pope temporal power? 
Yes — say all Papists — in his own dominions he has. Though 
Jesus Christ said, " my kingdom is not of this world," his pre- 
tended vicar has a kingdom on earth, enters into the intrigues of 
civil courts, and declares war, and concludes peace ! This is 
strange. But has the pope the right to depose temporal princes, 
and absolve their subjects from their oath of allegiance 1 Yes — 
say the Transalpine bishops, and a great number of eminent 
Roman theologians. No — says the other party."* 

But cannot the infallible church settle these troublesome differ- 
ences ? No ; eighteen hundred years have passed since Peter, it 
is said, was appointed visible head of the church, and they re- 
main undetermined. The Council of Florence decided, that the 
pope has " full power to feed, regulate, and govern the universal 
church ;" but this language is sufficiently comprehensive to em- 
brace all that is claimed by the most ardent advocates of the 
pope's prerogatives. Still, however, the difference exists. In 
the meantime, the popes have claimed and exercised all that may 
be comprehended in the language of the Catechisiii of Trent — 
" the full amplitude of jurisdiction,'''* 

Innocent III, with the advice of his council, deposed John, 
King of England ; who, by his degrading humiliation, made him- 
self contemptible in the eyes of all men. Reeve, the Roman 
historian says, " For these reasons the cardinals, the bishops, and 
other members of the council, unanimously agreed, that where 
pressing evils called for redress, the most efficacious means ought 
to be adopted. Guided by this principle, and unfortunately biased 
* Butler's Book of the Church, Let. x, pp. 106-108. 



THE POPE IS ANTI-CHRIST. 125 

by that current opinion of the age, which attributed to the sove- 
reign pontiff a presumptive power over the temporal rights of 
kings, they gave their advice, and upon that advice Innocent pro- 
nounced sentence of deposition against John, King of England^ — 
declaring the throne vacant, and his former subjects no longer 
bound by any oath of allegiance. He notified this sentence to 
Philip Augustus by letter ; in which he exhorts his Gallic ma- 
jesty to avenge the insults done by John to religion, to drive the 
enemy of Christ out of England, and to unite that kingdom to 
the kingdom of France."* 

Jesus Christ when upon earth refused to settle a difficulty be- 
tween two brothers about a single estate, saying, " Man, who made 
me a divider over you ? " and he reproved his disciples who, 
indignant that their master was not received by a certain Samari- 
tan village, would have called down fire from heaven to consume 
them. But Pope Innocent, his pretended vicar, as if determined 
to prove himself anti-christ, and thus give the lie to his own 
claims, first undertakes to depose a king, and then exhorts another 
king to make war upon him, and to avenge the insults he had 
offered to religion ! Avenge the insults offered to religion by ^ 
bloody war ! ! And to this men were exhorted by one who claims 
to be the vicar of " the Prince of Peace ! ! ! " 

John, forsaken by his subjects, to save himself from utter ruin, 
agreed to become a vassal of the Pope. " The King," says 
Reeve, " by his own free choice, and not at the requisition of 
Pandolf [the Pope's legate], as Mr. Hume says, had prepared an 
authentic charter, in which he solemnly declares, that not con- 
strained by fear, but of his own free will, and by the advice and 
consent of his barons, he had for the remission of his sins resigned 
England and Ireland to God, to St. Peter and St. Paul, to Pope 
Innocent and his successors in the Apostolic chair, and that he 
engaged himself and his successors to hold these dominions as 
feudatory of the church of Rome, by the annual payment of a 
thousand marks for England, and three hundred for Ireland. 
This charter, duly signed and sealed with wax, he delivered to 

* Hist, of Church, vol. ii, pp. 77-78. 



126 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

Pandolf, in the presence of his nobles, and then did homage to 
him, as the pope's representative, with all the humiliating ceremo- 
nies which the feudal law required of vassals before their leige 
lord and superior."* We cannot but wonder that Reeve was not 
ashamed to say, what no one ever believed or can believe, that 
John submitted to such degradation "of his own free choice." 
Nor can we fail to see in the degradation of John the true spirit 
of popery. 

Otho, Emperor of Germany, was excommunicated and deposed 
by Pope Innocent, because he refused to give him certain lands 
to which he laid claim. " Excommunication," says Reeve, "had 
no effect upon a man who was obstinately wrong. The Pope 
then declared that he had forfeited his title to the imperial crown, 
and forbade his subjects to acknowledge him any longer for their 
sovereign. Otho immediately sunk into contempt, was neglected 
and abandoned by all the world."! Many other kings and prin- 
ces met with similar treatment at the hands of the pretended 
successors of Peter. The last attempt to exercise this impious 
power, if my memory is correct, was directed against Elizabeth, 
Queen of England. It proved a failure; and the haughty Pon- 
tiff was obliged to see that the power of Rome was fast declining. 

Many of my hearers may not be aware that Pope Alexander 
VI made a present of America to the Kings of Spain and Por- 
tugal. Reeve says — " To this Pope the two kings of Spain and 
Portugal, Ferdinand and Emmanuel, applied for a grant to hold 
all the lands they might discover and conquer in any part of the 
globe not yet explored." Did the Pope grant their request? 
Yes— the same historian says "Alexander, in a pompous bull, 
authorized the two royal petitioners to hold all the territory they 
might gain possession of in the new world, with a view of propa- 
gating the Christian religion among the savages by the ministry 
of the gospel." This Pope, it seems, in the height of his tower- 
ing ambition^ claimed as his own the whole world. But were 
such claims generally acknowledged ? Yes — Reeve says, " They 

* Hist, of Church, p. 80. f Ibid. v. ii, p. 84. 



THE POPE AN APOSTATE. 127 

[ the two kings ] knew the papal grant would be respected, and 
would give them a colored title which would not be disputed." * 

Now let me ask, is it reasonable to believe that Jesus Christ 
would establish in his church an office of so much importance, 
and so capable of being abused to the incalculable injury of his 
church and the world, and yet leave the kind of authority and 
the limits of the authority to be exercised in that office, undefined 
and indefinable ? It is an admitted fact, that not a few of the 
popes have been men of unbounded ambition and of infamous 
character. Yet we are to believe that our Saviour entrusted to 
the hands of such men the most unlimited power 1 

II. The titles and honors claimed by the pope and given by 
the church of Rome, prove his apostacy, Peter was called an 
Apostle and an Elder ; but his pretended successors claim and 
receive such titles as "His Holiness," "Our Lord," "Vicar of 
Christ," &c. Our Saviour said to one who regarded him as a mere 
man, " Why callest thou me good? There is none good, but 
one, that is God." But the pope — a poor sinful creature — not 
content with being called good, claims and receives the title due 
only to God, " His Holiness \ " When was Peter called, as is 
Pius IX, in connection with his late Encyclical Letter, " Our 
Lord ? " When was he called " the Vicar of Christ ? " Such 
titles, pleasing only those whose pride and ambition have passed 
all ordinary limits, prove conclusively, that the office is not of 
Christ's appointment, or that those who fill it are apostates and 
rebels against him. 

But the pope claims something more than empty titles. They 
who venture to approach "His Holiness," must prostrate them- 
selves ; and possibly they may enjoy the privilege of kissing 
his foot t On the 15th of March, 1836, as we learn from the 
Catholic Herald, the pope " was pleased to honor with his pre- 
sence the Irish College at Rome." He was received at the gate 
by " the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinal J. F. Fran- 
soni, robed in purple." He first prayed before the relics of St. 
Patrick. "After that, he ascended the throne which had been 

Plist. of Church, v. ii, pp. 203-4. 



128 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

prepared in one of the halls, and admitted all to kiss the foot /" 
What a condescention in " His Holiness " and what a privilege to 
the inmates of the Irish College ! So distinguished a favor must 
be made known to posterity ; and therefore directions were given 
to have the following inscription on marble : 

" To Gregory XVI, Pope — because on the 15th of the calends 
of March, 1836, he distinguished, with the splendor of his majes- 
ty, the Irish College, restored and endowed under his special care, 
by Leo XI, and added that public token of benevolence to singu- 
lar favors, conferred upon Ireland — the President of the College 
caused this monument of a grateful mind to be erected." 

Now contrast with all this the conduct of Peter, whose succes' 
sor Gregory pretended to be. Peter was directed to go and preach 
the gospel to Cornelius the centurion, and his family. " And as 
Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his 
feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand 
up; I myself also am a man."* Peter was a man; and there- 
fore he refused to allow Cornelius to prostrate himself before him. 
The pope claims what Peter refused, and what he refused be- 
cause he was a moM / What is the unavoidable conclusion from 
such facts ? 

III. Let us now proceed to the examination of those passages 
of Scripture relied upon to sustain the claims of the pope. 

The first, and one of the weakest arguments in support of 
Peter's supremacy, is the fact that in numbering the Apostles the 
inspired writers placed the name of Peter first^ — ^' The first, 
Simon, who is called Peter." Let us look at the premises and 
the conclusion, that we may determine whether there is any con- 
nection between them. In giving the names of the Apostles, the 
inspired writers placed Peter's name first ; therefore Peter was 
appointed to be the visible head of the church, the vicar of Jesus 
Christ ; and his successors inherit his office and his authority ! 
Is the mere relative location of Peter's nam-e a fact of sufficient 
importance to warrant such a conclusion ? Peter was one of the 
first chosen to be an Apostle, was perhaps older than any one of the 

* Acts X, 25, 26, 



CHRIST THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH. 129 

twelve, and was forward, on all occasions, to confess Christ ; and 
therefore it was, perhaps, that his name is first in the list. Nothing 
more can be proved from the fact, than that Peter, for these or 
such reasons, had peculiar respect shown him. Nor can any- 
thing more be inferred from the fact that he preached on the day 
of Pentecost, and was directed to introduce the first Gentile fam- 
ily, that of Cornelius, into the church. The doctrine of the 
pope's supremacy is too important and too prominent to be proved 
by far-fetched inferences. If it is true, it must be distinctly taught 
in the Scriptures, It is a doctrine to which there must have been 
frequent and distinct reference in the discourses and epistles of 
the Apostles, and in the inspired history of the church, contained 
in the Acts of the Apostles. The very fact that Roman writers 
feel constrained to attach great importance to circumstances so 
unimportant, proves that they are conscious of the scantiness of 
their evidence. 

The first Scripture, and that which is most relied on, is Math. 
xvi, 18. "And I say also unto thee. That thou art Peter, and 
upon this rock will I build my church ; and the gates of hell 
shall not prevail against it." The Saviour had asked his disci- 
ples — "Whom say you that I am?" Peter answered — "Thou 
art the Christ, the Son of the living God." The Saviour replied 
in the language just read. Now the question between Protest- 
ants and Papists is, whether Peter, or Christ whom Peter had 
just acknowledged, is the rock on which the church was to be 
built ? We deny that Peter was the rock, for reasons which I 
will now assign. 

1. The language of our Saviour, in this passage, is very simi- 
lar to that used by him with reference to the temple, misunder- 
stood by the Jews, just as this has been by Papists. The Jews 
demanded of him a sign. "Jesus answered and said unto them. 
Destroy this temple, and on the third day I will raise it up. 
Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in 
building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days? But," adds 
the inspired writer, " he spoke of the temple of his body." * By 

* John ii, 19-21. 



130 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

the phrase, " this temple," the Jews understood the temple near 
which they were standing ; but Jesus meant his body. By " this 
rock," the Papists understand Peter ; but Christ meant himself 
whom Peter had just acknowledged to be the Son of the living 
God. 

2. The language employed by the Saviour seems evidently 
intended to prevent the very mistake into which Papists have 
fallen ; for he said : " Thou art Petros — a stone, a bold and firm 
believer — and upon this petra [rock] will I build my church." 
If he had intended to build the church on Peter, he must have 
said, on this pefro (the dative case of Petros) will I build my 
church. Why did he employ another word — petra, which means 
properly a rock ? The use of another word to signify the founda- 
tion of the church, excludes the idea that Peter was that founda- 
tion. 

3. There is not another passage in the Bible which represents Pe- 
ter, or any other man, as the foundation of the church of Christ. 
On the contrary, Jesus Christ himself is everywhere represented 
as the only foundation on which the church is erected. There 
is, therefore, not another passage to support the Romish interpreta- 
tion of the one under consideration ; whilst there are many to 
confirm the interpretation I have just given. Isaiah says : " There- 
fore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a founda- 
tion a stone, a true stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure founda- 
tion : he that believeth shall not make haste."* This foundation, 
as Peter informs us, is Christ.t Paul says : " Other foundation 
can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." J 
Again he speaks of the foundation laid, by the Apostles and 
Prophets, ''Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone ;"§ 
But he does not distinguish Peter from the other Apostles. 
Since, therefore, the Romish interpretation of the passage before 
us is not sustained by any other Scripture, but is inconsistent 
with the language uniformly employed on the same subject, we 
are forced to the conclusion that it is false. 

4. There is no conceivable sense in which Peter could be the 

* Ch. xxviii, 16. t 1 Pet. ii, 6. X 1 Cor. ill, 11. ^ Eph. ii, 20. 



CHRIST THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH. 131 

foundation of the church. Christ is the foundation, as I have 
shown, because by his death and intercession he saves the church 
from the curse of the broken law. In this sense Peter could not 
be the foundation. Again, Christ is the foundation of the church 
because by his omnipotent power he defends it from all enemies, 
so that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. In this re- 
spect Peter could not be the foundation. What could his feeble 
arm do for the church in the hour of peril ? Were it even true 
that Peter was appointed the chief pastor of the church, there 
would be no propriety in representing him as its foundation. 

But Romanists contend that their interpretation is confirmed 
by the gift of the keys of the kingdom to Peter. " And I will 
give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatso- 
ever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and 
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."* 
This might strengthen the claims set up for Peter, if Christ had 
not given precisely the same authority to the other Apostles. By 
the power of the ke^T's Peter was to bind and loose; but precisely 
this power was given to all the Apostles : " Verily I say unto 
yon^ Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : 
and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in hea- 
ven."! Inasmuch as the same authority was granted to all the 
Apostles, we are obliged to understand the language of Christ to 
Peter as addressed not exclusively to him ; or, at least, as not 
designed to confer on him any superior authority. 

5. The contentions among the Apostles, after the keys had 
been given to Peter, which of them should be greatest, and the 
Saviour's reply to them, prove that Peter was not appointed to 
be "the prince of the Apostles." It was after this that the 
mother of Zebedee's children asked that her two sons might en- 
joy the highest place in the kingdom. At this request the other 
ten disciples were much displeased Did Christ remind her or 
them, that Peter had already been appointed to the first place ? 
No, he said, " Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercised 
dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority 

* Math, xvi, 19. + Math, xviii, 18. 



132 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever 
will be great among you, let him be your servant," &c.* The 
kingdom of Christ, he told them, was to be unlike the kingdoms 
of the Gentiles. In his kingdom the greatest man would be the 
most humble. But is not the church of Rome organized as the 
governments of earth ? Does not the pope exercise even tempo- 
ral authority over the people ? Is he not a temporal prince ? 
What is the difference between the pope, cardinals, archbishops^ 
and bishops, and the king, his cabinet, his lords, &c. ? Would 
any one, on witnessing the pomp and parade of Rome, dream 
that the pope and his cardinals had ever read this language of 
Jesus'? Certainly, if Peter had received any such appointment 
as is claimed for him, the other Apostles knew it not ; and it does 
not appear that in those contentions he claimed anything of the 
kind. Moreover, is it not unaccountable, if Peter had received 
such an appointment, that the Saviour did not remind the Apostles 
of that fact, and thus put an end to those painful contentions ? 
The truth is, no such appointment had been, or was to be made. 

IV. My fourth argument against this doctrine is the fact, that 
Peter neither claimed nor exercised any swperiority over the other 
Apostles. On the contrary, the Acts of the Apostles and the 
epistles, do afford conclusive evidence that no superior authority 
had been conferred upon him. 

1st. Peter wrote two general epistles, in neither of which does 
he intimate that he had been appointed the visible head of the 
whole church. The first epistle begins thus : " Peter, an Apos- 
tle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers," &c. And in the fifth chap- 
ter he thus addresses the elders, or ministers of the gospel, " The 
elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and 
a witness of the sufferings of Christ, &c., — feed the flock of 
God." His second epistle, written a short time before his 
death, thus commences : " Simon Peter, a servant and Apostle of 
Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with 
us," (fcc. Not a word is found in these epistles from which it 
can be inferred that Peter claimed the least authority beyond that 

* Math. XX, 20-26. See also Luke xxii, 24-27 



CHRIST THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH. 133 

possessed by every other Apostle. Indeed, Romanists never ap- 
peal to his epistles — the very documents to which they ought to 
appeal — in proof of his supremacy. How shall we account for 
Peter's silence on this most important point ? The church was 
then in its infancy under the New Dispensation, and was being 
fully organized for the great work to which she was called. How 
important, then, that Peter's supremacy should be universally 
known and acknowledged. How important, while he was guard- 
ing the churches against false teachers, " who privily should bring 
in damnable heresies," and whose pernicious ways many should 
follow, to have directed them to himself and his successors, as 
*' the center of unity." Why did he not then say as Gregory 
XVI, in his Encylical letter — " Let all remember that the princi- 
ples of sound doctrine with which the people are to be imbued, 
must emanate from, and that the rule and the administration of 
the universal church belongs to, the Eoman Pontiff, to whom was 
delivered the ' full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the uni- 
versal church,' by Christ, our Lord?" Ah, these high claims 
were for a later day in the history of the church ! In vain do 
you look for them in the Epistles of Peter, just where, if they 
had existed, we must have found them clearly set forth. 

2d. Let us turn to the Acts of the Aposdes, which contain a 
brief history of the church for about thirty years. If the doc- 
trine of Peter's supremacy is true, it must be found there. 

The first occasion for the exercise of his authority occurs in 
the appointment of an Apostle in the place of Judas Iscariot 
Peter suggested the necessity of such an appointment ; but did he 
exercise any superior authority in the case 1 Did he either nomi- 
nate or ordain him ? No. " They (the Apostles) appointed two, 
Joseph called Barnabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 
And they prayed and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts 
of all men, show whether of these two men thou hast chosen, 
<fec. And they gave forth their lots, and the lot fell upon Mat- 
thias, and he was numbered with the eleven Apostles."* Peter's 
supremacy is not found here. 

* Acts i, 23-26. 



134 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

The next occasion for the exercise of his authority is recorded 
in the eighth chapter of the Acts. Philip had gone to Samaria 
and there preached the gospel with great success ; insomuch, 
that " the people with one accord gave heed unto those things 
which Philip spoke, hearing and seeing the miracles which he 
did." The Apostles, who were at Jerusalem, heard of this won- 
derful work, and it was deemed proper to send some of their 
number, who might pray for them, that they might receive the 
Holy Ghost. Did Peter send them ? If he was pope certainly 
he did. But no ; " They (the Apostles) sent unto them Peter 
and John." The Apostles sent Peter ! Then Peter was sub- 
ject to his brethren, just as John and the other Apostles were. 
Who ever heard of the Pope of Rome being sent on such 
business ? 

Another occasion when, if Peter had been pope, he must have 
exercised his prerogative, is recorded in the fifteenth chapter of 
the Acts. There we have an account of the first Christian 
council ever held ; which, of course, would be regarded as the 
model for all succeeding councils. Certain Judaizing teachers 
preached at Antioch that the disciples of Christ must be circum- 
cised in order to salvation. Paul and Barnabas opposed them ; 
and it was finally determined that they and certain others '^ should 
go to Jerusalem, unto the Apostles and elders, about the ques- 
tion." Nothing is said about going to Peter, When they 
reached Jerusalem, " the Apostles and elders came together for to 
consider this matter." Did Peter preside in this council, and 
give the final decision ? If he was pope, certainly he did. But 
no ; when the matter had been considerably discussed, Peter rose 
and gave his views ; which, since he was inspired, were of course 
correct. Did this terminate the matter ? No ; Barnabas and Paul 
were then heard, " declaring what miracles and wonders God had 
wrought among the Gentiles by them." After they were heard, 
James arose, and after giving his views and reasons, said, " Where- 
fore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among 
the Gentiles are turned to God ; but that we write unto them, 
that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, 



CHRIST THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH. 135 

and from things strangled, and from blood." In this decision the 
council acquiesced, and wrote to the churches accordingly. Now 
it appears evident that James, not Peter, presided in this coun- 
cil ; and if there was a pope, it was James. Had Peter done 
just what James did, all Romish writers would have appealed to 
the council, and the part he acted in it, as evidence conclusive of 
his supremacy. 

According to the doctrine of the church of Rome, a council cannot 
be oecumenical, nor its decrees binding on the church, unless it be 
called by the pope, and its acts be confirmed by him. In the his- 
tory of the council at Jerusalem there is not found the slightest in- 
timation that Peter had any superiority over the other Apostles. 
It was neither called by him, nor were its decisions confirmed by 
him. And from the fifteenth chapter to the end of the Acts, the 
name of Peter is not once mentioned. From the only inspired 
history we have of the first thirty years of the existence of the 
church under the New Dispensation, we are constrained to con- 
clude, that the doctrine of Peter's supremacy was then unknown. 
This doctrine belongs to a later period. 

The inspired epistles greatly strengthen the evidence in sup- 
port of this conclusion. Paul addressed an epistle to the church 
of Rome, containing what may be properly regarded as a 
complete system of theology, doctrinal and practical ; but in that 
epistle Peter's name is not once mentioned. He did, however, 
give to that church a warning which, had it been regarded, would 
have saved her from corruption and ruin. " For," said he, "if 
God spared not the natural branches [the Jews], take heed lest he 
also spare not thee." * 

The same Apostle addressed two epistles to the church of 
Corinth. In the second of these, Peter is not once mentioned. 
In the first he is several times mentioned, but in such connection 
that even Papists do not appeal to that epistle as sustaining his 
supremacy. In the first chapter the Apostle reproves the church 
for the divisions which existed among them. " Now this I say, 
that every one of you saith — I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and 

*Ch, xi, 21. 



136 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul 
crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" 
Evidently the Corinthian Christians did n.ot know anything of 
the supremacy of Peter. If they had. contentions such as existed 
among them could not have now arisen. Or if they had sprung 
up, how suitable the opportunity, whilst they were thus contend- 
ing, for Paul to have directed their attention to the '- Prince of 
the Apostles," and to have impressed upon their minds the truth, 
that he was '' the center of unity." But he did not ; he simply 
exhorted them not to glory in men, because all things were 
theirs, "whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas," &lc* 

The next time Peter is mentioned he is spoken of as leading 
about a wife — a singular business, truly, for a pope ! " Have we 
not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other Apostles, 
and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephasl^^ t The author of 
the notes in the Doway Bible, indeed, assures us that the Apostle 
"only speaks of such devout women as, according to the custom 
of the Jewish nation, waited upon the preachers of the gospel, 
and supplied them with necessaries." But we shall be slow to 
believe, without very clear evidence, that the Apostles were in 
the habit of leading about women who were not their wives, to 
wait upon them. That is a practice of much later days, and 
seems to be peculiar to the Roman clergy. It is certain that 
Peter had a wife, since we read of his "wife's mother;" and there 
is, of course, nothing impossible in the intimation of Paul, that 
she often went with him in hie journeys. 

In the second epistle to the Corinthians, I have said Peter is 
not mentioned ; and I may now add, that in this Paul employs 
language concerning himself which is utterly irreconcilable 
wath the doctrine of Peter's supremacy. " For, I suppose," says 
he, " I was not a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles;" and, 
as if he had been careful to employ the very strongest possible 
language in opposition to Popery, he says again — "For in 
NOTHING am I behind the very chiefest Apostles, though I be 
nothing." X Now if Peter was " the Prince of the Apostles," the 

* Ch., iii, 21. t Ch. ix, 5. t Ch. xii, 1, 2. 



CHRIST THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH. 137 

visible head of the church, how could Paul say with truth, that 
in 7iothing he was behind or inferior to the very chiefest Apos- 
tle ? There is no way to sustain the claim set up for Peter, 
without condemning Paul as guilty of great presumption and re- 
bellion ! For if the doctrine of Rome is true, he certainly was 
greatly inferior to Peter in some things, at least in authority. 

In the epistle to the Galatians we find Peter again mentioned, 
but in a manner wholly inconsistent with his pretended su- 
premacy. Paul, it is true, says, he went to Jerusalem to see 
Peter ; but it was after he had been filling the office of an Apos- 
tle three years. When appointed to the Apostleship he says — 
" Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood ; neither went 
I up to Jerusalem to them who were Apostles before me," (fee. ; 
and he is careful to say that the other Apostles added nothing to 
him.* 

This is not all. Paul states distinctly that the gospel of the 
circumcision^ the preaching of the gospel to the Jews — ^not the 
care of the whole church — was committed to Peter; as that of 
the uncircumcision was to him. " But contrariwise, when they 
saw that the gospel of the circumcision was committed unto me, 
as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter (" For he that 
wrought effectually in Peter to the Apostleship of the circumcision, 
the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles ) ; (fee. Now 
if Peter had been appointed visible head of the whole church, 
how could Paul sa}^, with truth, that he was sent specially to the 
Jews, as he himself was to the Gentiles ? Would it not sound 
strangely now to hear a Roman bishop representing the Pope of 
Rome as having in charge the ministry to a particular nation of 
people. 

But Paul goes even further in contradiction of the doctrine of 
Rome ; for he represents Peter, not as the foundation of the church, 
but as one of its pillars^ and places him on a perfect equality 
with James and John. "And when James, Cephas^ and John 
who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given 
unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellow- 
G * * Chapters i ii. 



138 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

ship ; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the 
circumcision." Peter was but a pillar ; and James and John 
were no less. Peter gave Paul and Barnabas the right hand of 
fellowship ; but James and John did the same thing. Peter, 
therefore, exercised no superior authority. He like James and 
John, was going to preach the gospel to the Jews ; as Paul and 
Barnabas to the Gentiles. Can you make a foundation of a 
fillar ? or can you build a house on a pillar ? If not, neither is 
the church built on Peter. He and James, and John, were pillars 
in the church — each of them sustaining the same relation to it. 

From this epistle to the close of the New Testament, we do 
not find Peter again mentioned, except in the epistles which he 
himself wrote. The churches are warned against schism, against 
error, and against false teachers ; but they are never once directed 
to Peter as the supreme visible head of the church, or as " the 
center of unity." John the Apostle lived to a great age, and 
wrote his epistles and the Apocalypse after the death of Peter, 
and when false teachers in great numbers were abroad in the 
earth. He exhorts Christians not to "believe every spirit, but try 
the spirits whether they are of God ; " and he gives them certain 
tests by which they might ascertain who were true ministers of 
Christ, and who were false teachers ; but in not a single instance 
does he allude to Peter or to any visible head of the church. 
Not an intimation is dropped that the supremacy of Peter and his 
successors had even been heard of. This is wholly unaccount- 
able on the supposition that the doctrine of Rome is true, but 
perfectly consistent on the supposition that the great Protestant 
doctrine of Christ's headship is true. 

V. Peter, we have said, was a married man^ and, therefore, 
wholly disqualified for being Pope. Celibacy is regarded by 
Romanists as a state so much holier than marriage, that no mar- 
ried man is permitted to be a priest, or to fill any ecclesiastical 
office in the church of Rome. Deposition and excommunication 
would be visited upon the priest who should venture to be " the 
husband of one wife." Bishop Purcell, in his burning zeal for 
the holy state of celibacy, exclaims — " I glory in this feature of 



i 



LIBERIUS SIGNS THE ARIAN CREED. 139 

our discipline. Death before dishonor to a virginal priesthood ! "* 
Yet this same Bishop also glories in defending the doctrine that 
a married man, who must of course have dishonored the " virgin- 
al priesthood," was selected by our Lord himself as his vicar on 
earth — as the visible head of his church ! One is almost tempted 
to think, that the Romish clergy glory in nothing, more than in 
being inconsistent ! If Peter was visible head of the church, 
they who make it a crime of the first magnitude for a priest to 
marry, are not his ligitimate successors. 

VI. Since the doctrine of Peter's supremacy is evidently con- 
trary to the Scriptures, it is not very important that we trouble 
ourselves by referring to the uninspired history of the church. 
It is sufficient to state the fact, that the most learned men who are 
not Papists, are unable to find any trace of the doctrine of the 
pope's supremacy in the primitive ages of Christianity; that 
they even doubt whether Peter was ever at Rome. It is true that 
much deference was shown to those churches planted by the 
Apostles, and to Rome amongst others ; but for the supremacy of 
the Roman Bishop we look in vain for several centuries after the 
death of Christ. 

VII. The 'practical working of this doctrine proves it of marCs 
devising. The office of the Pope has been shamefully used for 
the purposes of avarice, ambition, and lust, as the history of the 
church too clearly proves. At one .time we find a Pope (Liberi- 
us) or a Bishop of Rome, signing the Arian creed ; and again the 
pretended chair of Peter is filled by abominable debauchees, 
through whom the most dissolute women governed Rome and 
the church. That Pope Liberius did sign the Arian creed, thus 
denying the Lord that bought him, is not denied by Bishop 
Hughes ; but he says, " Pope Liberius did not sign the Arian 
creed in the Arian sense or meaningr\ And, pray, what other 
sense had the Arian creed? Or could the Bishop inform us 
what is the orthodox meaning of an Arian creed ? He attempts 
to save the orthodoxy of the Pope, by representing him as 
practicing a hypocritical and Jesuitical trick — signing a creed he 

* Debate with Campbell, p. 191. t Cath. Con., Let. xxxi, p. 258. 



140 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 



did not believe, and attaching to it an orthodox meaning ! The 
Bishop gives no evidence, however, that Liberius was guilty of 
such dishonesty. 

Concerning the gross immorality of some of the popes we 
have the testimony of standard writers in the church of Rome. 
Bishop Hughes quotes Baronius as saying — " Who, considering 
these things, would not be scandalized, and think in amazement, 
that God had forgotten his church, which he permitted to be dis- 
graced at the will (or caprice) of strumpets ?"♦ Reeve tells of 
^' the infamous Cardinal Borgia, who reigned eleven years, under 
the name of Alexander VI ;" as also of " those unworthy popes, 
who so shamefully disgraced the tiara by their immoral conduct 
in the tenth century."! But the time would fail us to relate the 
hundredth part of the iniquity practiced by the pretended succes- 
sors of St. Peter, who yet were neither censured or deposed for 
their shameful conduct. 

In view of this discussion, we are brought to the following 
conclusions, viz. : 

1st. That the Scriptures afford no evidence that it was the pur- 
pose of our Saviour to have his church united under the presi- 
dency of one visible head, or even of a general council. That 
he has but one church is certainly true ; and Paul tells us distinct- 
ly in what the unity of the church consists, viz. : "i/i the unity of 
the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God.p^ It is not 
union under a visible head, pope, or council, but holding the 
same faith, entertaining the same views of the character and 
work of the Son of God. Wherever, on the earth, we find a 
body of people holding the great doctrines of the gospel, observ- 
ing its ordinances, and obeying its laws, there we find part of the 
family of Christ ; and those Christians we acknowledge as breth- 
ren. And although Papists have, to so great extent, allowed the 
pope to dictate their faith, it is yet true that Protestants have a far 
better claim to Scriptural unity than they ; because it is unity in 
the belief of revealed truth, received not on the testimony of fal- 
lible men, but on the authority of God. Romanists believe cer- 

* Cath. Con., Let. xxxiii, p. 280. + Ch. Hist., v. i, p. 515. J Eph., iv. 13. 



SCHISMS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME. 141 

tain doctrines and tenets because their clergy say they are true ; 
Protestants '* search the Scriptures daily whether these things are 
so." Moreover, it is a fact, which has been proved in preceding 
lectures, that the Roman clergy differ from each other on several 
most important points of faith, which they have never been able 
to determine, and which, therefore, they choose to call opinions. 
The truth is, the doctrines of the pope's supremacy and church 
infallibility have failed to prevent frequent and terrible schisms, 
and the spread of heresy. Who has not heard of the great 
schism which divided the Greek and Latin church into two 
bodies, between which to this day there is no fellowship? Who 
has not read of the Great Western Schism in the fourteenth cen- 
tury, when there were at the same time three or four rival popes, 
each sustained by his party, and each fulminating excommunica- 
tions and anathemas at the others, to the unspeakable dishonor of 
the Christian name? — which schism agitated and divided the 
western church for half a century, and was terminated only by 
the deposition of all the popes and the election of a new one by 
the Council of Constance, which was effected after the See of 
Rome had been vacant, and the church had been without a head, 
two years ! And whether the Council had the right to adopt 
this high-handed measure is not yet determined among the theo- 
logians of Rome ; since some of them contend that the pope is 
above a general council. Who has not read of the Arian heresy, 
which had its rise in the fourth century, and which for a time 
overran the church, when Liberius, Bishop of Rome, signed the 
Arian creed ? Now if the doctrine of Papists be true, the su- 
premacy of the pope was then universally acknowledged ; and 
yet it was perfectly powerless to stop the spread of that ruinous 
heresy, which was not checked without the aid of the civil arm. 
And who does not know how completely the pope and his clergy 
failed to stay the progress of the Reformation of the sixteenth 
century, even when they had all the civil rulers in Christendom 
under their ghostly authority? And so far as it was checked, it 
was done, not by the spiritual power of Rome, but by the sword 
of persecution and the tortures of the Inquisition ! Who has not 



142 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

heard of the recent religious revolution in Germany, under the 
ministry of Ronge and Czerski, which is still extending, and is 
affecting the German popxilation of our own country. 

The truth is, these schisms and revolutions, at least some of 
the most important, owe their origin to the tyranny and corrup- 
tion of Rome. The shameful sale of indulgences by Tetzel and 
his coadjutors, was the immediate occasion of the glorious Refor- 
mation ; and the impositions and gross superstitions connected 
with the famous coat of Treves, produced the revolution now in 
progress. Such facts as these, and they might be greatly multi- 
plied, show with how much reason the Roman clergy declaim 
concerning the divisions among Protestants, and boast of the unity 
of their own church. The difference between Protestants and 
Papists, so far as this matter is concerned, is simply this : Pa- 
pists excommunicate and a7iaihematize all who presume to differ 
from them in the smallest point of what they call faith ; while 
Protestants acknowledge as brethren all who hold the fundamen- 
tal doctrines of the cross, and who give evidence, by their con- 
duct, that they are the true followers of Christ. The Roman 
clergy shall be welcome to all the credit due their church on this 
score. 

2d. We are now prepared to answer the question so often boast- 
ingly, asked by Romanists — ^' Where was your church before 
Luther and Calvin ?" In the New Testament we find a church 
organized, which, in all essential points, is identical with the Pres- 
byterian and other evangelical Protestant churches. Whether 
we can trace the church in every step of its progress, from the 
Apostles down to the present day, is not important ; though we 
believe we can do it. We have no inspired or perfect history of 
the Christian church. So far as we have history, it has been 
written by fallible men, whose particular prejudices give coloring 
to what they wrote. The Christian church like the Jewish, how- 
ever, has had its beauty greatly marred, and its strength impaired, 
by error and superstition. As the Book of the Law was for a time 
buried under the rubbish in the Jewish temple, so, during the 
dark ages, was the Bible almost lost amid the immense multitude 



THE SCRIPTURES THE ONLY GUIDE. 143 

of human traditions. And as the Book of the Law, when found, 
wrought a most important reformation in the Jewish church, so 
the Scriptures, when restored to their place, as the lamp to the 
feet, and the light to the path of men, in the 16th century, 
wrought a glorious reformation — the results of which shall be 
seen and felt to the end of time, and throughout eternity. 

But the church whose faith contradicts the Word of God can- 
not be right; and the church whose faith is sustained by that 
Word, cannot be wrong. To this test we appeal ; and by it we 
are willing to stand or fall. 



1 



I 



REPENTANCE NOT PENANCE. 145 



LECTURE VI. 

Luke xxiv, 47. ** And that repentance and remission of sins should be 
preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." 

Jesus Christ had risen from the dead. He had appeared to 
two of his disciples as they were going to Emmaus, a village 
near to Jerusalem — and, beginning at Moses and the Prophets, 
he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concern- 
ing himself He then manifested himself to the Apostles in 
Jerusalem, and in his discourse said — " Thus it is written, and 
thus it behoved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the 
third day : and that repentance and remission of sins should be 
preached in his name among all nations." The commission 
which he gave the Apostles was, to go and preach the gospel to 
every creature; and in discharging this duty ihey w^ould preach 
repentance and remission of sins in his name. 

Observe, they were to call upon men to perform a duty — to re- 
pent ; and they were to offer them, on condition of repentance, 
the remission of their sins ; and this remission would be granted 
in the name, and through the merits of Christ. 

The particular truth to which your attention is invited,, is — 
that full remission of sins is granted to every one who repents, 
and to no others. This doctrine is abundantly taught in the 
Scriptures, as in such passages as the following : " The sacrifices 
of God are a broken spirit ; a broken and contrite heart, O God, 
thou wilt not despise."* " But to this man will I look, even to 
him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my 
word."t " And the publican, standing afar off^ would not lift up 
so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, say- 
ing, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went 
down to his house justified rather than the other." J 

* Ps. li, 17. t Isaiah Ixvi, 2. X Luke xviii, 13, 14. 



146 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 



What, then, is repentance^ Literally it is a change of mind — 
such a change of views and feelings as leads to hatred of all sin, 
and deep, ingenuous -sorrow for sin. Such was the change in 
the mind of the publican, when, ashamed and distressed, he 
cried — "God be merciful to me 'a sinner." Such repentance 
leads necessarily to reformation ; for he who hates sin must love 
holiness ; and he who mourns his past transgressions will turn 
from them to " the obedience of the faith." 

But the Roman clergy teach that men must do penance; and 
thejr even affirm that penance is a sacrament appointed by Jesus 
Christ. It was instituted, they tell us, when " he breathed on his 
disciples, sayings whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven 
them ; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." As 
a sacrament it is designed, according to them, for those only who 
sin after baptism. The Council of Trent says — " If, in all the 
regenerate, there were such gratitude, that they always kept the 
righteousness received by his goodness and grace in baptism, 
there would have been no need to institute another sacrament for 
the remission of sins besides baptism. But since God, who is 
rich in mercy, knoweth our frame, he hath provided a saving 
remedy for those w^ho yield themselves again to the slavery of 
sin and the power of the devil, namely, the sacrament of pen- 
ance, whereby the benefits of the death of Christ are applied to 
those who sin after baptism^ 

The sacrament of penance, we are told, consists, as to the mat- 
ter of it, of three acts or parts, viz. : contrition, confession, and 
satisfaction. ''Moreover," says the Council of Trent, ''the acts 
of the penitent, namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction, 
are the matter, as it were, of this sacrament, which, inasmuch as 
they are required by divine appointment, in order to the com- 
pleteness of the sacrament, and the full and perfect remission of 
sins, are for this reason called the parts of penance." 

The minister of this sacrament, we are taught by Rome, is a 
regularly ordained priest ; and " the form of the sacrament of 
penance, in which its power chiefly lies, resides in the words of 



i 



REPENTANCE NOT PENANCE. 147 

the minister — ^ I absolve thee from thy sins, in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' " * 

Such is the doctrine of the Roman clergy, guarded, as are all 
their tenets, by anathemas against all who venture to deny its in- 
fallible truth. Disregarding their anathemas, I proceed to assign 
the reasons why we protest against it. 

I. The command to do penance is not found in the Scriptures. 
It is found in the Doway Bible ; but the words translated penance 
and do penance^ never have any such meaning. The words 
are metanoia and matnoeo. The first of these words signifies 
literally a change of mind, and the second, to change, the mind. 
These words are derived from noos^ the mind, and wc^^, which 
signifies a change, as in the English words metamorphosis, meta- 
phor, &c. I need not go into the proof of these statements, 
because they will scarcely be called in question by any one. 
These words, then, let it be remarked, express simply and exclu- 
sively mental exercises — a change of views and a consequent 
change of feelings, terminating in sorrow for sin, and reformation 
of life. But the word penance is derived from the Latin word 
poena^ which signifies, not a change of mind, but punishment ; 
and one of the most important parts of what is called the sacra- 
ment of penance is satisfaction., made to divine justice, by punish- 
ment inflicted and voluntarily or patiently endured. Every 
intelligent mind perceives at once the radical difference between 
punishment inflicted on the body or the mind, in order to satisfy 
the claims of divine justice, and that "godly sorrow" which arises 
from hatred of sin, and leads to reformation. Indeed there could 
not be a grosser mistranslation, a more unjustifiable perversion of 
Scripture, than the rendering of the word metanoeo^ do penance. 
It is not only an incorrect translation ; it is really no translation 
at all. The words in question have no such meaning as that 
assigned to them in the Doway Bible. The Latin Vulgate, 
which is of highest authority with Papists, translates the word 
metanoeite (repent) by the Latin words agiie poenitentiam^ but the 
word poenitentia^ as every Latin scholar knows, does not mean 

* Ch. i and iii — on Penance. 



14S ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

'penance^ but penitence^ or sorrow for sin. So that the Doway 
translation is not even a correct rendering of the Vulgate. For 
the correctness of these statements I appeal to all respectable 
Greek and Latin Lexicons, and to every scholar of any reputation. 

A brief quotation from the Catechism of the Council of Trent 
will obviate the necessity of adducing further proof of the correct- 
ness of my statements concerning the meaning of the words 
translated repent and repentance. " The pastor, therefore, will 
teach that the word ( pcenitentia) has a variety of meanings. In 
the first place, it is used to express a change of mind ; as when, 
without taking into account the nature of the object, whether 
good or bad, what was before pleasing, is now become displeas- 
ing to us. * * * In the second place, it is used to express that 
sorrow which the sinner conceives for sin, not however for sake 
of God, but for his own sake. A third meaning is when we 
experience interior sorrow of heart, or give exterior indication of 
such sorrow, not only on account of the sins which we have 
committed, but also for sake of God alone whom they offend. 
To all these sorts of sorrow the word ( poenitentia) properly 
applies." p. 177. Even according to the Roman exposition of 
the word, you perceive, it expresses nothing more than a change 
of mind resulting in sorrow for sin. It does not express what 
the Roman clergy mean by penance. 

II. But even if vm admit the correctness of the tra/islation, the 
Scriptures give no countenance to the doctrine of Rome.. The 
Council of Trent teach, that the sacrament of penance was insti- 
tuted "for the benefit of the faithful.^ to reconcile them to God, as 
often as they shall fall into sin after baptism ;^^ but the passages 
of Scripture in which the command is contained, require penance 
( if we allow the translation ) before baptism and in order to it. 
John the Baptist preached to the Jews, saying, " Do penance, for 
the kingdom of heaven is at hand."* And on the day of Penti- 
cost Peter said, '^ Do penance, and be baptized every one of you 
in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins."t The 
Council of Trent acknowledge, that " in order to obtain grace 
* Math, iii, 2. f Acts ii, 38. 



I 



REPENTANCE NOT PENANCE. I49 

and righteousness, penance was always necessary for all men 
who had defiled themselves with mortal sin, even for those who 
sought to be washed in the sacrament of baptism ;"* but they 
make a great difference between penance as required before bap- 
tism, and penance as a sacrement after baptism. That is, when 
God commands unbaptized persons to do penance, they under- 
stand him as meaning one thing ; and when he commands 
baptized persons to do penance, though precisely the same 
language is em.ployed, they understand something radically differ- 
ent ! Is not this a singular mode of interpreting language ? 

Where in the Bible shall we find penance as a sacrament ? 
We are told that our Lord instituted the sacrament of penance, 
when after his resurrection he said to the Apostles — " Receive ye 
the Holy Ghost ; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven 
them," &c.t But unfortunately the word translated penance is 
not here used ; nor is there anything either about penance or any 
sacrament. Whatever the passage may mean, therefore, it gives 
no countenance to the doctrine of penance as a sacrament. 

Since, then, the command to do penance is not found in the 
Word of God ; and since, even if we admit the grossly false 
translation of the Do way Bible, penance is required before bap- 
tism and in order to it, and is never spoken of as a sacrament ; 
the conclusion is inevitable, that the doctrine of the church of 
Rome is false. It is a corruption of the Scriptural doctrine of 
repentance, 

III. The third argument we urge against the doctrine of pen- 
ance, is, that two of the three parts of which it is said to consist^ are 
yalpably contrary to the Word oj God, viz., confession and sat- 
isfaction. We believe in the necessity of contrition — of " godly 
sorrow " for sin — but against the other two parts of this pretend- 
ed sacrament we enter our protest. Let us examine those points 
carefully. 

1st. We believe in the necessity of confession of sin, but not 
in the kind of confession required by the Roman clergy. We 
believe in the necessity of confession to God. Such was the con- 

* Ch. i, on Penance. t John xx, 22, 23. 



150 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

fession of David: "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and 
done this evil in thy sight," &c.* Such was the confession of the 
publican, " God, be merciful to me, a sinner."t Such is the con- 
fession spoken of by John the Apostle, " If we confess our sins, 
he [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse 
us from all unrighteousness. "J 

We believe in confession to the officers and church of Christ, 
when persons desire to be admitted to membership. This is ne- 
cessary, that they to whom " the keys of the kingdom" are com- 
mitted, may have evidence that the applicants for membership 
are truly converted to God. Of such confession we haye a 
remarkable example in Acts xix, 18, 19: "And many that be- 
lieved came and confessed, and showed their deeds. Many also, 
of them which used curious arts, brought their books together, 
and burned them before all men." This was a public confession, 
before baptism, which justified the church in receiving the persons 
as members of the church of Christ. It was not such confes- 
sion as the church of Rome requires. 

We believe in confession to the church, when a member has 
been guilty of unchristian conduct, that the reproach thus thrown 
upon the cause of Christ may be removed, and that the church 
may have such evidence of the repentance of the sinning mem- 
ber, as will justify his being restored to their confidence and fel- 
lowship. The church may then forgive the offense, 5^? far as it 
has been committed against her. Of such confession we have an 
example in 2 Cor. ii, 7, " So that contrary wise, ye ought rather 
to forgive him [the incestuous but deeply penitent member], lest 
perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sor- 
row." The individual had greatly sinned, and had been exclud- 
ed from the fellowship of the church ; but, having given satisfac- 
tory evidence of true repentance, he was, by the direction of the 
Apostle, restored. 

We believe in confession to individuals^ when we have done 
them an injury [see Matthew v, 23, 24], that we may make the 

* Psalms li, 4. t Luke xviii, 13. X\ John i, 9. 



AURICULAR CONFESSIOJS^. 



151 



best reparation in our power, and enable them again to place con- 
fidence in us. 

We believe that Christians should confess their faults one io 
another^ that they may the more fervently pray for each other. 
James the Apostle says, " Confess your faults one to another, and 
pray one for another that ye may be healed."* 

In confessions such as these Protestants believe ; but we most 
decidedly protest against auTicvlar confession to a priest, in order 
to receive absolution or pardon. 

The Roman clergy do not require all sins to be confessed to 
priests, but only mortal sins. The Council of Trent says, " For 
venial offenses, by vi^hich we are not excluded from the grace of 
God, and into v/hich we so frequently fall, may be concealed 
without fault, and expiated in many other ways ; although, as the 
pious custom of many demonstrates, they may be mentioned in 
confession, very properly and usefully, and without any presump- 
tion. But seeing that all mortal sins, even of thought, make 
men children of wrath, and enemies of God, it is necessary to 
seek from him pardon of every one of them, with open and 
aumble confession." Mortal sins, we are told, are to be confess- 
ed to the priests, not generally, but in minute detail, with all the 
-attendant circumstances which may aggravate or palliate the 
offense. ''For," says the Council, "it is plain that the priests 
cannot sustain the office of judge, if the cause be unknown to 
them ; or inflict equitable punishments, if sins are only confessed 
in general, and not minutely and individually described. For 
this reason it follows that penitents are bound to rehearse in con- 
fession all mortal sins, of which, after diligent examination of 
themselves, they are conscious, even though they be of the most 
secret kind, and only committed against the two last precepts of 
the decalogue, <fec. * * * * Moreover, it follows, that even 
those circumstances which alter the species of sin are to be ex- 
plained in confession, since otherwise the penitents cannot fully 
confess their sins, nor the judge know them," &c.t 

The priest who hears confession is represented as setting in 

* Ch, V, 16. t Ch. V, of Confession. 



^52 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

the tribunal of penance, as Christ himself, and forgiving sins and 
inflicting punishment, as 2, judge, "Though," says the Council 
of Trent, " the priest's absolution is the dispensation of a benefit 
which belongs to another, yet it is not to be considered as merely 
a ministry, whether to publish the gospel, or to declare the remis- 
sion of sins, hut as of the nature of a judicial actj in which sertr 
tcnce is pronounced by him as a judge," &;c.* We often hear oi' 
Romanists denying that the priests profess to forgive sins .as 
judges ; but look at the language of their infallible council. The 
language of the Catechism of Trent is, if possible, still more 
explicit. " Unlike the authority given to the priests of the Old 
Law, to declare the leper cleansed from his leprosy, the power 
with which the priests of the New Law are invested is not sim^ 
ply to declare that sins are forgiven, but, as the ministers of God, 
really to absolve from si?i; a power which God himself, the au- 
thor and source of grace and justification, exercisos through their 
ministry." Again : " The voice of the priest, who is legitimately 
constituted a minister for the remission of sins, is to be heard as 
thai of Christ himself who said to the lame man, ' Son, be of 
good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee.' "t 

We oppose this doctrine for the following reasons :- 
L It is founded on an unscriptural and grossly absurd division 
of sins into mortal and venial — the former deserving eternal pun- 
ishment, and the latter only temporal punishment. What is a 
mortal sin? The Doway Catechism says — "Any great offense 
against the law of God ; and is so called because it kills the soul, 
and robs it of the spiritual life of grace.":|: The language, you 
perceive, is perfectly indefinite — " any great ofTensie." How great 
must it be before it becomes mortal, and deserves eternal punish- 
ment? How are we to ascertain precisely how great an offense 
must be, to make it mortal sin ? This is not a mere speculative 
matter. On the contrary, it is one of the utmost importance. 
Men, we are told, must confess to the priest all their mortal sins, 
because every such sin "kills the soul, and robs it of the spi^rit- 
ual life of grace." How unspeakably important, then, that they 

* Ch. vi, of the Minister, f pp. 18,2, ISO. t p. HO. 



/ AURICULAR CONFESSION. I53 

be able to ascertain with infallible certainty when they are guilty 
of mortal sin. But when we. ask the clergy, who profess to be 
our guides, what is mortal sin ? they tell us, it is " any great 
offense against the law of God " — using language perfectly inde- 
finite, and therefore, for all practical purposes, unmeaning ! 

But here we have an effort to answer the question. '^ How 
shall we be able to know when any sin is mortal, and when it is 
but venial?" Answer — "Because to any mortal sin it is re- 
quired both that it be deliberate, and perfectly voluntary ; and 
that it be a matter of weight against the law of God ; one or 
both of which conditions are always wanting in a venial sin."* 
We will say nothing of the expressions, '• deliberate and perfectly 
voluntary;" but what are we to understand definitely by "a 
matter of weight against the law of God ? " How much of 
weight must there be? The language is again perfectly indefi- 
nite, and therefore, for practical purposes, unmeaning. Let any 
man take this definition, and determine, if he can, when he is 
guilty of mortal sin, and what sins he must confess. He cannot 
do it ; and, which is worse, his priest or his bishop cannot help 
him out of his perplexity ; for each of them is fallible, and there- 
fore cannot give a better definition of mortal sin than his breth- 
ren have given. They may express an opinion; but they can 
say nothing with certainty 

Where does the venial sin become mortal, and the finite pass 
the line beyond w^hich it is infinite? A venial sin, we are told, 
is " a smaH and very pardonable offense against God, or our 
neighbor."! But how small? All is indefinite again. The 
truth is, it is impossible for any Romanist to know when he sins 
mortally, and therefore it is impossible for any to be assured that 
they have confessed all their mortal sins. 

But let us look a little further into the Do way Catechism. It 
teaches us that there are seven deadly sins, viz. : " Pride, covet- 
ousness, lechery, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth." 4: How the 
Roman clergy ascertained that precisely these seven and no more 
were deadly sins, I know not ; such, however, is their assertion. 

* Dow. Cat., p. 111. t Ibid. t p. 112. 



154 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY^. 

But here we are met by the same difficulty just noticed. Pride^ 
for example, is a deadly sin. Is every degree of pride deadly or 
mortal sin ? If so, it follows, that every individual who is not 
perfect in humility is constantly living in deadly sin. If this be 
true, how many of the clergy themselves would be free from 
deadly sin, even for an hour ? Would even the man claiming 
the proud title — '' His Holiness" — escape? But if every degree 
of pride is not mortal sin, in what degree must it exist, before it 
becomes deadly ? Where, precisely, does it pass the line — ^that 
invisible line — which separates the venial from the mortal, the 
finite from the infinite ? Here we are perfectly in the dark ; all 
is indefinite and wholly unsatisfactory. 

Again — Covetousness is a deadly sin. Is every degree of it 
so ? If not, what degree is ? The same questions may be asked 
concerning the whole seven ; and no answer can be given. The 
division of sins into mortal and venial is perfectly absurd. 

But we may well doubt whether the list of mortal sins, even 
if we admit the distinction, is quite complete. It is truly sur- 
prising that in this list we do not find lying and stealing-^sins 
which have been almost universally regarded as mortal, if any 
are so. But lying, we are told, is not always mortal sin. The 
Doway Catechism has the following question and answer : — 
^' When is a lie a mortal sin ? Answer. When it is any great 
dishonor to God oj notable prejudice to our neighbor; other- 
vxisCj if it be merely officious, or trifling, it is but a venial sin.''* 
Here again the language is perfectly indefinite. A lie is a mortal 
sin, we are informed, when it is any great dishonor to God. 
IIoiv great must be the dishonor before the venial sin becoaies 
morta] ? A man may tell lies which are a dishonor to God; but 
unless the dishonor be great^ they are only venial sins! A lie is 
a mortal sin, the Catechism says, when it is a ^^ notable prejudice 
to our neighbor." Hotv nvkible must it be? What does the word 
710 table mean in this connection ? Does it convey any definite idea? 

A man may steal as well as /ie, it seems, without being charge- 
able with mortal sin. The same Catechism already quoted has 

* p. 69. 



AURICULAR CONFESSION. I55 

the following question and answer : " When is theft a mortal 
sin ? A. When the thing stolen is of a considerable value, or 
causeth a considerable hurt to our neighbor."* Thefl, we are 
here taught, is not mortal sin, unless the thing stolen is of a con- 
siderable value. What does the word considerable here mean ? 
Would one dollar, or five, or ten, or twenty, be of considerable 
value ? The clergy cannot inform us. What if a Romanist 
should conclude that fifty dollars is not of a considerable value, 
and, therefore, having stolen that amount, and regarding himself 
as guilty of only venial sin, should conceal the crime from his 
confessor, would he violate any law of the Roman church ? But 
if the theft causeth '' a considerable hurt to our neighbor," then it 
is mortal sin. Here again we have the same vague, indefinite 
language. What is meant by considerable hurt ? How great 
must the injury be, before the hurt becomes considerable ? No 
answer. Now we knov/ the loss of a single dollar would be a 
considerable hurt to a very poor person, whilst the loss of five 
hundred dollars would not be seriously felt by a man worth a 
hundred thousand. Suppose, then, a Romanist should steal one 
hundred or five hundred dollars from such a man ; would this 
theft be a mortal sin? In view of the immense riches of the 
man from whom the amount is stolen, would it be " a consider- 
able value ? " Or, since the loss of this sum would not cause 
any very serious injury to the wealthy neighbor, would it amount 
to "considerable hurt?" No answer — -all is perfectly indefinite. 
The truth' forces itself upon us, in view of these wretched 
principles, that the moral code of Rome is rotten to the very core. 
Who ever before thought of measuring the moral guilt of theft 
simply or chiefly by the quantity stolen ? Who does not know 
that the man who will steal one dollar, is destitute of the principle 
of honesty — is a thief in heart ? Who does not know that such 
a man will steal a larger sum, whenever the temptation apd the 
opportunity present themselves ? Paul the Apostle has taught 
us that ^HhievesP whether they actually steal much or little, 
shall not inherit the kingdom of God ; t but according to, the 

* p, 66. + 1 Cor. vi, 10. 



15^3 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

teaching of the Roman clergy, men may be in heart and in fact 
thieves, and may yet inherit the kingdom of God, because they 
may be guihy of only venial sin ! In other words, a man may 
be a true Christian, and yet be a thief and a liar ! 

I have said that the morality of Rome is rotten to the very core. 
It is admirably adapted to make thieves and liars ; for they teach 
children that they may lie and steal, and yet be guilty only of 
venial sin, which it is wholly unnecessary to confess, since it is re- 
mitted " by all the sacraments, by holy water, devout prayer, 
alms-deeds, and the like good works."* What multitudes of 
children have become confirmed liars by telling, at first, those 
venial lies ! And how many have gone to the penitentiary and 
the gallows, who commenced their downward career by pilfering 
articles of trifling value ! Only teach them that a little "holy 
water," '' devout prayer," and the like, will secure the remission 
of such sins ; and the way is fairly open for them to become 
religious liars and thieves ! And of all liars and thieves these 
are the worst ; because they have the means, which others have 
not, and to which their infallible guides have helped them, of 
quieting their consciences. 

I am aware that Roman writers boast of the efficacy of " the 
tribunal of penance," particularly in securing the restoration of 
stolen property. The Catholic Herald, of July 21, 1836, contains 
a letter from an Irish priest, addressed to a gentleman who had 
charged him with lia\ang used the confessional for political pur- 
poses. By way of proving the utility of the confessional in 
restraining immorality, he mentions the following, amongst other 
instances, of the restoration of stolen property by Roman priests : 

" The following persons, whose published receipts are now 
lying before me, acknowledge that they have received the sums 
opposite to their names, as restitution money, through the hands 
of Catholic priests: 

Mr. Thos. North, Drogheda, £20 

Alexander Carew, Hymenstown, - - - - 105 
Richard Jeffares, 12 

*Dow. Cat., p. 111. 



AURICULAR CONFESSION. 157 

Lord Rathdowne, 10 

John Dumie, Ballinakill, 30 

Rev. C. Stewart, Dublin, 20 

James Walsh, Dame street, - 10 

The Teller of the Exchequer, - - - - - 100" 
One of these gentlemen, Mr. Dumie, in his published letter, 
addressed to the Rev. Mr. Kehoe, after acknowledging the re- 
ceipt of £30, adds, "The numerous instances that have come to 
my knowledge of the restitution made through you, and for sums 
of very considerable amount — in one instance of 700 guineas — 
are, in my humble judgment, among the unquestionable proofs 
of the purity of that faith which you profess and teach." 

The writer of this letter mentions but ''a few instances," but 
says, "I could mention thousands.''^ Truly, these statements, so 
boastingly made, are instructive. For evidently, when there is so 
much restitution of stolen property, there must be a great deal 
stolen ; and if one priest could mention thousands of cases, and 
if we may suppose that others could mention as many, there must 
have been an immense number of thieves amongst the Roman 
Catholics of Ireland. How shall we account for this ? Doubt- 
less, it may be traced, in part, to the very division of sins into 
venial and mortal, of which we are now speaking. Protestants 
read in their Bible : " Let him that stole, steal no more ;" and 
they learn that thieves and liars will find their portion in the lake 
of fire. But Romanists are taught that they can both lie ^nd 
steal without committing mortal sin, and that venial sin is easily 
remitted by a little "holy water," <fec. 

The truth is, notwithstanding all the boasting about restitution, 
a great deal of what is stolen by Papists is never restored to the 
owners. I beg leave to read a few extracts from St. Ligori's 
Moral Theology-— a standard work among Romanists. He says : 
^* Concerning the seventh commandment [the eighth in our Bible] 
let him [the confessor] ask, whether he [the penitent] has stolen 
anything from another, and from whom, and whether from one 
or more, whether alone or with others, and whether once or 
often : because if he has stolen a valuable material at any one 



153 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. ^ 

time, he has sinned mortally at that time. But if he has stolen 
a small amount at different times, then he has not sinned mortally, 
unless it amount to a valuable quantity ; provided that from the 
beginning he had not the intention of reaching a valuable 
amount; but since that amount has now become considerable 
[gravis) although he has not sinned mortally, yet he is bound 
suh-gravi — under mortal sin, to restitution, at least of that last 
quantity which constituted the amount consider able^ Here, you 
observe, we are informed, that a man may steal small quantities 
without being chargeable with mortal sin ; and when the goods 
or money stolen amount to a considerable sum — (the language is 
perfectly indefinite) — he is bound to restore the last quantity 
stolen ! Of course, he may retain all the remainder without being 
chargeable with anything worse than venial sin, which is " a 
small and very pardonable offense." 

Again he says: "But probably those who have eaten fruit in 
the vineyards of others, provided they be not rare, or of great 
price, may be excused at least from mortal sin, if they do not 
carry it away in large qantities. [The language still perfectly 
indefinite.] For in things of this kind, which are too little ex- 
pounded, a greater quantity is required to constitute a valuable 
amount. And in this way men-servants and maid-servants may 
be easily excused, who take from their master's tables ; provided 
they be not in large quantities, or extraordinary. Neither ought 
those to be regarded as guilty of mortal sin who cut wood, or 
take their flocks to feed in the fields of the community, though it 
be prohibited, because such prohibitions are supposed to be penal." 

Again : " When thefts are committed by children, or by wives, 
a much greater quantity is required to constitute the sin mortal; 
and rarely are these held under strong obligation (gravi obliga 
tione) to restore." 

Once more : " If he [the thief] cannot make restitution with- 
out reducing himself to severe want, that is, without falling 
from that state which he has justly acquired, then he may 
defer restitution, provided the loser be not in severe want 
Nay, though the loser be in severe want, probably even then tho 



AURICULAR CONFESSION. 159 

debtor is not bound to restitution, when he is likewise in severe 
wantj and by restitution would be placed, as it were, in extreme 
necessity. This, however, is understood, provided the thing 
stolen does not exist in species, and provided the loser was not 
reduced particularly by that theft to that severe necessity." Here 
it is observable, that circumstances are to determine whether stolen 
property must be restored. 

Again — "If the theft is uncertain, that is, if the person injured 
is uncertain, the penitent is bound to restore, either by causing 
masses to be said, or giving alms to the poor, or giving it to pious 
places ; and if he is . poor, he may apply it to himself or his 
family. But if the person is certain, restitution should be made 
to him : wherefore it is indeed wonderful that there are found so 
many confessors so unskilful, who, when it is known who the 
loser is, impose on their penitents, that for the thing to be restored 
they should give alms, or cause masses to be celebrated." 

I said this division of sins into mortal and venial, is grossly 
absurd. It is more ; it is grossly immoral in its tendency. And 
this very division accounts, to a considerable extent, for the preva- 
lence of all kindsof immorality in Roman countries, and amongst 
Romanists in Protestant countries. Who wonders that the mor- 
ality of which I have given a specimen, leads men to dishonesty ? 
Need I undertake to prove this division of sins unscriptural ? 
Where in the Bible do you read of veriidl sins ? " The wages 
of sin is death," says Paul.* But according to the doctrine of 
Rome, he should have said — The wages of mortal sin is death. 
" The soul that sinneth it shall die," says Ezekiel.f Why did 
he not say, The soul that sinneth mortally? The Apostle 
John speaks of a sin unto death, for the forgiveness of which 
we are not to pray ; this is probably the unpardonable sin, but is 
certainly not what Papists call mortal sin. So they themselves 
acknowledge. The passage is as follows : " If any man see 
his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, 
and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. 
There is a sin unto death : I do not say that he shall pray for it." 

*Rom. vi. 23. f Ch. xviii, 20. 



160 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

I Epis. V, 16. A note in the Doway Bible on this passage, says 
— " It is hard to determine what St. John here calls a sin, which 
is not unto death, and a sin which is unto death. The difference 
cannot be the same as betwixt sins that are called venial and 
mortal. * * * B]/ a sin^ therefore, which is unto death^ inter- 
preters commonly understand awilfullapostacy from the faith, and 
from the known truth," &c. 

In the Doway Catechism we are referred, for proof that some 
sins are venial, to 1 John i, 8. '^ If we say that we have no sin, 
we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." We are likewise 
referred to James iii, 2. " In many things we all offend ; " and 
to Math, xii, 36. " But I say unto you, That for every idle word 
that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day 
of judgment." But in these passages not a word is said about 
venial sins, nor about the Roman division of sins into mortal and 
venial. The Roman clergy assume what they cannot prove — 
that what they call mortal sin robs the soul of spiritual life, 
and makes him who commits it, an enemy of God ; and thence 
they infer, that any sin which a true believer may commit with- 
out losing spiritual life, is venial, not mortal. The premises are 
not true, and therefore the conclusion is false. But the same 
Catechism refers to Prov. xxiv, 16. " The just man falleth seven 
times," &c. "Not mortally," say the authors, " for then he were 
no longer just, therefore, veniaJy." This, however, is a gross 
misapplication of the text, as the preceding verse proves conclu- 
sively — " Lay not wait, O wicked man, against the dwelling of 
the righteous; spoil not his resting-place : for a just man falleth 
seven times, and riseth up again." In what way does a just man 
fall ? Into sin ? No — lay not in wait, O wicked man, to injure the 
righteous ; for God is his protector ; and though he be prostrated 
seven times, he shall rise and prosper again. Such is the obvious 
meaning of the passage. 

It is by such assumptions and perversions of Scripture, that a 
division is made of sins into mortal and venial. But since this 
division is absurd, immoral in its tendancy, and unscriptural, it 
follows, that the doctrine that all mortal sins must be confessed to 



AURICULAR CONFESSION. 161 

Roman priests, is false. The doctrine of auricular confession 
cannot stand without this division ; for we know that no one can 
confess in detail all the sins with which he is chargeable ; and if 
this were possible, the clergy could never hear the confessions of 
their followers. But by classing much the larger portion of all 
their sins under the head of venial sins, which need not be con- 
fessed, the thing becomes more practicable. The truth is, the 
distinction is one of the many inventions of the clergy to suit, and 
enable them to carry out in practice, their dogmas. The corrup- 
tion of a single prominent doctrine of Scripture makes other 
alterations and corruptions equally necessary; just as he who 
tells one falsehood, must tell several more to avoid contradiction 
or inconsistency. 

2. In the Old Testament we read of nothing like auricular 
confession or priestly absolution. Ln the Temple of Solomon 
there were no confessionals. Indeed it is worthy of remark, that 
even the proud Pharisees, in the height of their presumption, 
never dreamed of claiming authority to forgive sin. When our 
Lord forgave the sins of a man in their presence, they, regarding 
him merely as a man, exclaimed — " Why doth this man speak 
blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God only ?"* Evidently 
they had never heard of the doctrine of priestly absolution. And 
yet, so far as we can judge, there was quite as much necessity for 
such confession and absolution under the old dispensation, as 
under the new. 

3. In the New Testament there is no command to Christians 
to confess to the ministers of Christ, with a view of obtaining 
absolution ; nor is there one example of confession heard and ab- 
solution granted by any one of the Apostles or other Christian 
ministers. Strange as it may seem, Roman writers rely for the 
doctrine of auricular confession upon James v, 16 — "Confess 
your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may 
be healed." But does the Apostle require Christians to confess 
to a priest ? No — but " one to another P Does he require them 
to do this, that they may be absolved by "a judicial act?" No — 

7 ^ * Mark ii, 7, 



]62 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

but that they may pray one for another. And why should all 
this be done? Because Christ gave to his ministers the keys of 
the kingdom, that they might forgive sin? No — but because 
" the effectual fervent prayer of the righteous availeth much with 
God." This is proved by reference to the remarkable manner 
which the prayers of the Prophet Elias were heard. What has 
all this to do with auricular confession and priestly absolution? 
How hardly pressed must the Roman clergy be, when they seek 
to sustain their doctrines by perversions of Scripture so glaring ! 

It is true, Jesus Christ gave to his ministers " the keys of the 
kingdom of heaven," and authorized them to forgive and retain 
sins. But have they the keys of the kingdom of glory ^ so that 
no man can enter heaven but by their permission ? So affirms 
the Catechism of the Council of Trent. " To gain admission 
into heaven^ its gates must be opened to us by the power of the 
keys conferred by Almighty God to the care of his church." 
''For," say the Tridentine Fathers, "if heaven can be entered 
without the keys, in vain shall they to whose fidelity they have 
been intrusted assume the prerogative of prohibiting indiscrimi- 
nate entrance within its portals."* The Roman clergy, pre- 
sumptuously claiming that Christ has given them the keys of the 
kingdom of glory, pretend to say who shall, and who shall not, 
go to heaven ! 

What are we to understand by " the keys of the kingdom of 
heaven?" To answer this question we must ascertain the mean- 
ing of the phrase — '' kingdom of heaven." John the Baptist 
preached, saying, " Repent ye : for the kingdom of heaven is at 
hand."t t)id he mean the kingdom of glory? No — but the 
new, spiritual dispensation under which the church was about to 
be placed. So in parables our Lord said, " The kingdom of 
heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his 
field ; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares 
among the wheat." Again — '' The kingdom of heaven is Uke 
to a grain of mustard seed " — " is like leaven which a woman 
took and hid in three measures of meal" — "is like unto a net," 

* p. 193. t Math, iii, 2. 



AURICULAR CONFESSION. I53 

«fec. The Disciples came to Jesus and asked — " Who is greatest 
in the kingdom of heaven?" "And from the days of John the 
Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and 
the violent take it by force." * In these and other passages it is 
evident that "the kingdom of heaven" is the church under the 
new dispensation. The design of "the keys" is to unlock the 
door and admit those who ought to enter, and to close it against 
the unworthy. The Apostles of Christ were ministers of the 
church on earthy not of the church triumphant in heaven ; and 
therefore the keys of the church on earth were given to them. 
They consequently were authorized not only to preach the gos- 
pel to every creature, but to exercise discipline for the purpose of 
preserving the purity of the church. They were authorized to 
open the door to those who gave evidence of piety, and to ex- 
clude others ; and the legitimate exercise of this authority was 
sanctioned and confirmed in heaven. Beyond this the Apostles 
never exercised authority, unless, as in case of Ananias and Sap- 
phira, they were divinely directed to inflict miraculous punish- 
ment on bold offenders. This ecclesiastical authority the officers 
of the church still have. But is there in the New Testament 
one command to Christians to confess their sins to any man, for 
the purpose of obtaining absolution ? There is not. Is there 
one example of a minister of Christ hearing confession, and 
granting absolution ? Not one. When Simon Magus, after he 
had been baptized, proposed to purchase the miraculous gifts of 
the Spirit, Peter said to him — " Repent, therefoTe, of this thy 
wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thy heart 
may be forgiven thee." t Peter did not direct Simon to confess 
to him, and obtain from him absolution, though his sin was com- 
mitted after baptism^ when, according to Rome, the sacrament of 
penance must be resorted to ? Far from it. Such powers he 
never thought of claiming. The claim of the pope and his 
clergy to forgive sins judicially is one of the many things which 
fix the meaning and application of that remarkable passage of 

* Math, xiii and xi, 12. f Acts viii, 22. 



164 ROMANISxM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

Scripture — '^ Who opposeth and exalteth himself against all that 
is called God, or that is worshipped." * 

VI. The doctrine of auricular confession is not only unauthor- 
ized and unscriptural^ but its tendency and uniform effects are 
deeply injurious to morality. God has wisely so constituted the 
human mind that its thoughts and feelings can be known to 
others only by its voluntary act. Into this sanctuary the Roman 
clergy claim the right to enter. The most secret thoughts and 
feelings must be revealed to them, however female modesty may 
shrink from the recital. Some of the questions contained in stand- 
ard Roman works, such as Ligori, to be propounded to penitents, 
are such as ] dare not mention before this audience. Priests are 
men of like passions with others. Indeed it is too notorious to 
be denied, that multitudes of them are men of corrupt minds and 
of immoral habits. Can it be otherwise, so long as human nature 
is what it ever has been, than that gross immorality must result, 
in many cases, from auricular confession ? Priests are not only 
imperfect, and many of them corrupt men, but they are unmar- 
ried men, to whom, therefore, it is particularly improper that 
females should be required to confess. 

That I do not exaggerate the danger from this source, is evi- 
dent from the acknowledgment of eminent Roman writers. 
Take, for example, the following from St. Ligori : " The confes- 
sor," says he, " should be extremely cautious in hearing the con- 
fessions of women." And, after giving a number of cautions, 
he exclaims — " And truly, O how many priests, who once were 
innocent, in consequence of similar attachment [to female peni- 
tents] which had commenced in spirit, have lost both God and 
the soul." Again — "In hearing the confessions of women, and 
in holding communications with them, let him [the confessor] ex- 
ercise that austerity which is proper, according to prudence, and, 
therefore, let him refuse small presents ; let him avoid familiarity, 
and all other things which can be the cause of adhesion {ad- 
hesionis). O how many confessors, on account of some negli- 
gence about this, have ruined (perdiderunt) their own souls, and 

* 2 Thess. ii, 4. 



AURICULAR CONFESSION. 165 

the souls of their penitents." This Roman saint would not slan- 
der the clergy. Are we not justifiable, then, in view of his tes- 
timony, given in language so unequivocal and so strong, in pro- 
nouncing the confessional dangerous to virtue, and of immoral 
tendency? Have not husbands, fathers, and brothers strong rea- 
sons for objecting to their wives, daughters, and sisters confessing 
privately to the Roman priests.^ I must here introduce the testi- 
mony of Rev. Joseph Blanco White, for a number of years a 
priest of high standing in Spain, afterwards a clergyman of the 
church of England. I quote from a work published by this 
gentleman in 1825, the title of which is — '' Practical and Inter- 
nal Evidences against Catholicism^^ &.c. 

" That my feelings are painfully vehement when I dwell upon 
this subject; that neither the freedom I have enjoyed so many 
years, nor the last repose of the victims, the remembrance of 
whom still wrings tears from my eyes, can allay the bitter pangs 
of my youth ; are proofs that my views arise from a real, pain- 
ful, and protracted experience. Of monks and friars I know 
comparatively little ; because the vague suspicions, of which the 
most pious Spanish parents cannot divest themselves, prevented 
my frequenting the interior of monasteries during my boyhood. 
* * * * gut of the secular clergy, and the amiable life-pris- 
oners of the church of Rome, few, if any, can possess a more 
intimate knowledge than myself. Devoted to the ecclesiastical 
profession since the age of fifteen, when I received the minor 
orders, I lived in constant friendship with the most distinguished 
youths who, in my town, were preparing for the priesthood. 
Men of the first eminence in the church were the old friends of 
my family — my parents' and my own spiritual directors. Thus 
I grew up, thus I continued in manhood, till, at the age of five- 
and- thirty, religion, and religion alone, tore me away from kin- 
dred and country. The intimacy of friendship, the undisguised 
converse of sacramental confession, opened to me the hearts of 
many, whose exterior conduct might have deceived a common ob- 
server. The coarse frankness of associate dissoluteness, left no 
secrets among the spiritual slaves, who, unable to separate the 



166 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

laws of God from those of their tyrannical church, trampled both 
under foot in riotous despair. Such are the sources of the know- 
ledge I possess. God, sorrow, and remorse, are my witnesses, 
A more blameless, ingenuous, religious set of youths than that 
in the enjoyment of whose friendship I passed the best years of 
my life, the world cannot boast of. Eight of us, all nearly of 
the same age, lived in the closest bond of affection from sixteen 
to one-and-twenty ; and four, at least, continued in the same inti- 
macy till that of about thirty-five. Of this knot of friends, not 
one was tainted by the breath of gross vice, till the church had 
doomed them to a life of celibacy, and turned the best affections 
of their hearts into crime." 

After giving a brief account of the fall and ruin of some of his 
friends, our author proceeds : " Such, more or less, has been the 
fate of my early friends, whose minds and hearts were much 
above the common standard of the Spanish clergy. What, then, 
need I say of the vulgar crowd of priests, who, coming, as the 
Spanish phrase has it, from coarse swaddling clothes, and raised 
by ordination to a rank of life for which they have not been pre- 
pared, mingle vice and superstition, grossness of feeling and pride 
of office in their character I I have known the best among them ; 
I have heard their confessions ; I have heard the confessions of 
young persons of both sexes, who fell under the influence of their 
suggestions and example ; and I do declare, that nothing can be 
more dangerous to youthful virtue than their company. How 
many souls would be saved from crime, but for the vain display of 
pretended superior virtue which Rome demands of her clergy ! " 

Such is the testimony of a man who most evidently speaks 
that which he does know\ I could wish that the work I have 
just quoted, were in the hands of every one who is willing to 
know the truth concerning Romanism. It is one of the best 
works I have seen on this controversy. 

I beg leave here, also, to adduce the testimony of Waddy 
Thompson, Esq., late Minister Plenipotentiary of the United 
States at Mexico, concerning the character of the clergy of that 
country. He is a gentleman of intelligence and standing, not a 



LICENTIOUSNESS OF THE ROMAN PRIESTHOOD. 167 

member, I believe, of any church, and not chargeable, so far as I 
know, with any prejudice against the Roman clergy. He says: 

" I do not think that the clergy of Mexico, with very few ex- 
ceptions, are men of as much learning as the Catholic clergy 
generally in other countries. The lower orders of the priests 
and friars are generally entirely uneducated, and I regret to add, 
as generally licentious. There is no night in the year that the 
most revolting spectacles of vice and immorality, on the part of 
the priests and friars, are not to be seen in the streets of Mexico. 
I have never seen any class of men who so generally have such 
a *' roue " appearance as the priests and friars whom one con- 
stantly meets in the streets. Of the higher orders and more 
respectable members of the priesthood, I cannot speak with the 
same confidence ; if they are vicious, they are not publicly and 
indecently so. Very many of them have several nephews and 
nieces in their houses, or, at least, those who call them uncle. 
The reason given for the injunction of celibacy, that those who 
are dedicated to the priesthood should not be encumbered with 
the care of a family, is, I think, in Mexico, much more theoreti- 
cal than practical." 

Such is the character of the priesthood in Roman countries; 
and I have, in preceding lectures, proved even by Roman writers, 
that in former times even the popes were far more immoral, 
than Thompson represents the clergy of Mexico. Are those of the 
United States much better ? There is a public sentiment in our 
Protestant country, that compels them to walk circumspectly ; but 
the facilities for secret vice, afforded by the confessional and nun- 
neries, are such that they cannot be easily detected. Many of 
them, moreover, are foreigners, whose characters have been form- 
ed in Roman countries, where the clergy are generally of loose 
morals ; and they certainly have the appearance, generally, of men 
not given to a great deal of abstinence — men who give no evi- 
dence of extraordinary sanctity. 

When such men hold ^' the keys of the kingdom," hear the con- 
fessions of the young and the old, male and female, what must be 
the inevitable effect upon morals? Will men be deterred from 



168 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

sinning when they know that such men are their confessors 2 
Do they not know how easy it is to obtain absolution from men 
as deeply involved in guilt as themselves ? 

2. Let us now examine the third part of penance — Satisfaction. 

The doctrine of Protestants is, that Jesus Christ made full and 
complete satisfaction for the sins of his people, and therefore 
those who believe in him do enjoy the remission of all their 
sins, and are in a state of justification. The Romish clergy teach 
— 1. That although the eternal punishment due to sin is pardon- 
ed for the sake of Christ, there remains a certain temporal pun- 
ishment which every believer must endure, either here or in 
purgatory. — 2. This satisfaction, we are told, consists of punish- 
ments voluntarily inflicted or prescribed by a priest, or afflictions 
patiently borne. — 3. Works of satisfaction are alms, fasts, prayers, 
inflictions of corporeal sufferings, visits to churches, <fec. " Who- 
ever," says the Council of Trent, " shall affirm that the entire pun- 
ishment is always remitted by God, together with the fault, and 
therefore that penitents need no other satisfaction than faith, 
whereby they apprehend Christ, who has made satisfaction for 
them : let them be accursed. Whoever shall affirm that we can 
by no means make satisfaction to God for our sins, through the 
merits of Christ, as far as the temporal penalty is concerned, 
either by punishment inflicted on us by him, and patiently borne, 
or enjoined by the priest, though not undertaken of our own ac- 
cord, such as fastings, prayers, alms, or other works of piety, and 
therefore that the best penance is nothing more than a new life : 
let him be accursed." 

This doctrine of Rome we reject for the following reasons : 

I. There remains no temporal punishment due to sin, after it is 
forgiven. To prove that there is, Dr. Milner quotes Exod. xxxii, 
34 : '' Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which 
I have spoken unto them — nevertheless in the day when I visit, 
I will visit their sin upon them." This is the language of God 
to Moses, when the Israelites had worshipped the golden calf 
The Bishop assumes, without the slightest evidence, that the 
eternal punishment due to their sin was forgiven. This cannot 



THE DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION FALSE. 169 

be proved ; and therefore the argument is worthless. Besides, 
the doctrine of Rome is, that punishments voluntarily endured or 
prescribed by a priest, constitute satisfaction ; but here we find 
no penances enjoined, no intimation that by any such means 
they could escape the threatened punishment. God threatens to 
punish the idolatrous Israelites ; and this fact is plead by the 
Roman clergy to prove that they have the right to prescribe 
penances, and that such penances constitute a real satisfaction 
for sin I What possible connection is there between the premi- 
ses and conclusion? 

Another passage confidently relied on is that in which Nathan 
reproved David for having Uriah slain — '' And Nathan said unto 
David, the Lord hath put away thy sin, thou shalt not die. How- 
beit, because of this deed thou hast given great occasion to the 
enemies of the Lord to blaspheme. The child also that is born 
unto thee shall die." 2 Samuel xii, 13, 14. Here we are told, 
the eternal punishment due to David's sin was forgiven, but a 
certain degree of temporal punishment remained to be endured 
by David. We reply — 1st. There is no evidence that the death 
of David's child and the suffering it caused him were designed 
as a satisfaction to Divine justice. He had given occasion to the 
wicked to blaspheme ; and now for the vindication of God's 
character, and for the purpose of humbling David, he is chastised. 
The Apostle, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, explains the nature 
and design of such sufferings. "For if ye endure chastening, 
God dealeth with ^^ou as with sons ; for what son is he whom the 
flither chasteneth not?"* What affectionate father ever thought 
of chastising his child as a satisfaction to his justice ? He may 
do so to bring him to obedience, and for an example to deter his 
other children from disobedience, but never as satisfactio7i. So 
God deals with his people as a father with his children. 2d. But 
if we admit that the sufferings of David were a satisfaction to 
divine justice, they were inflicted by God himself, not by David 
or the Prophet. Do the Roman clergy really propose to take the 
providence of God out of his hands ? If Nathan had prescribed 

Q * Ch. xil. 



170 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

certain penances to be endured by David as satisfaction to the 
justice of God. they might have had some show of reason for 
their doctrine ; but as the case is stated the argument they 
deduce from it is most ridiculous, if not impious. And these re- 
marks apply equally to all those passages in which God is said to 
chastise his people. He has not committed the affairs of his 
providence to the hands of his ministers. 

Bishop Trevern refers to the incestuous man, 1 Cor. v, 1. — • 
But unfortunately the eternal punishment due his sin was not 
pardoned. He is excommunicated for his shameful conduct ; but 
no penances are prescribed as satisfaction to divine justice. In 
the 2d epistle, ch. ii, we are informed that the man had become 
penitent : and therefore the church is directed to restore him to 
his standing in the church ; but no satisfaction to divine justice 
is mentioned directly or indirectly. The Apostle simply says 
(according to the Doway Bible), " To him who is such a one this 
rebuke is sufficient which is given by many." The discipline of 
the church has had the desired effect in bringing the offender to 
repentance and reformation. 

The same writer quotes, in favor of the doctrine of Rome, 
Col. i, 24. '' I ( Paul ) now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and 
fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, 
in my flesh for his body, which is the church." If this passage 
has anything to do w4th the doctrine, it teaches that Paul was 
making satisfaction to divine justice for the sins of the ivhole 
church ! True, the Roman clergy tell us, that one man may satisfy 
for the sins of another, though of this they can give no evidence ; 
but even they vv^ould scarcely believe that Paul was making satis- 
faction for the sins of all the church. Paul was filling up those 
things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ. What are we to 
understand by the sufferings of Christ ? I understand sufferings 
for the sake of Christ.^ just as "the reproach of Christ" means re- 
proach borne for the sake of Christ* Accordingly the Saviour 
said concerning Paul, — " For I will show him how great things he 
must suffer /or my name's sakey-\ Paul suffered for the church, not 

* H©b. xi, 26. t Acts xix, 16. 



CHRIST THE ONLY ATONEMENT FOR SIN. 171 

to make satisfaction to divine justice for her sins, but that as a faith- 
ful minister, braving reproach and persecution vi^hile discharging 
the duties of his office, he might build up Christians in the faith, 
and turn sinners to God. But neither in this passage is there the 
slightest intimation that Paul or any one ever suffered in order to 
make satisfaction to divine justice for the sins of others. 

II. There is not an instance on record^ in the Old Testament or 
in the New, in which any Priest, Prophet, or Apostle prescribed pen- 
ances as a satisfaction for sin ; nor did our Saviour , when on 
earth he forgave sins, ever prescribe anything of the kind. I 
deem it sufficient simply to state the fact, and to challenge suc- 
cessful contradiction. Since, therefore, the Scriptures no where 
teach that there remains a temporal punishment to be endured 
after the eternal punishment of sin is remitted, and since we 
have neither precept nor example to support the Romish doctrine 
of satisfaction for sin, we are fully justified in pronouncing it 
false. 

III. But we have clear and positive evidence that it is false ; 
for it contradicts all those portions of Scripture hi which Jesus 
Christ is represented as atoning for all our sins, and thus securing 
to us complete justification. Bishop Trevern says expressly, that 
Jesus Christ did not design to include in his sufferings that part 
of the penalty of God's law which we are able to endure. 
^' The temporal punishment of sin," says he, " was therefore 
wanting, to fill up afterwards ; and Jesus Christ did not intend to 
include them in his own sufferings, or consequently to exempt 
from them his mystical body, which is his church."* But the 
Apostle Peter says, in plain contradiction of this assertion, " Who 
(Christ) his own self bear our sins [woidi part of them] in his 
own body on the tree."t Now according to the doctrine of Rome, 
he should have said, Christ bear the eternal punishment of our 
mortal sins in his own body ! John says, " The blood of Jesus 
Christ his Son cleanseth from all sinPX Now if any man be 
cleansed from all sin, what more does he need in the way of 
satisfaction ? Isaiah said—" All we like sheep have gone astray, 

* Am. Discuss., v. ii, p. 145. f 1 Peter ii, 24. X 1 John i, 7. 



172 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

and God hath laid on him the iniquity of us all,"* not a 'part of 
the iniquity. All believers are represented as "justified by faith ;'* 
and to them it is declared, " there is no condemnation ;"t of course 
they cannot be condemned to satisfy for part of their sins, or to 
endure a part of the punishment due to them. Why, if the doc- 
trine of Rome is true, Jesus Christ is only a Saviour in jpart^ 
and man is partly his own saviour. And so teaches a certain 
cardinal quoted by Bishop Trevern : " Without the sufferings of 
our divine Saviour your sufferings would be unfruitful ; without 
yours^ his would he of no servicey\ Now in opposition to this 
we record the language of inspiration — " For by one offering he 
hath perfected forever them that are sanctified."^ Verily, it seems 
one of the prominent objects of Rome to rob Christ of the glory 
due his name, as the Saviour of sinnersj and to give that glory, at 
least in part, to man, to degrade the Saviour and exalt the sinner. 

IV. But if there is a certain temporal punishment due to sins 
forgiven, which Jesus Christ did not include in his atonement — 
satisfaction must be made for sins committed before baptism. As 
we have already proved, if the Scriptures teach the doctrine of 
penance at all, they require that penance be done — satisfaction 
made, for sins committed before baptism as well as after it. This, 
however, does not suit the doctrine of Rome. She holds the 
unscriptual doctrine that baptism is sufiiciently efficacious to 
cleanse from all the sin, original and actual, existing before it is 
administered. Consequently Christ, it would seem, included in 
his atonement all the punishment due to sins committed before 
baptism, but only the eternal punishment due to sins committed 
after baptism. Where do the Scriptures teach that in the atone- 
ment a difference of this kind was made ? Verily, this is one of 
the many inventions of the Roman clergy. 

V. But this doctrine of satisfaction involves another monstrous 
absurdity, viz., that a man can do more than God requires of him. 
Here, for example, is a Roman Catholic who, having sinned after 
baptism, is iindergoing the prescribed penances, making the neces- 

* Isaiah liii, 6. \ Rom. viii, 1. X Arnica. Discuss., v. ii, p. 152. 
^eb. X, 14. 



PRIESTLY ABSOLUTION OF NO WORTH. 173 

sary satisfaction, paying up the claims of divine justice. He 
must, of course, at the same time, be performing present duty. 
For if he is neglecting the duties of to-day, in order to make sat- 
isfaction for the delinquencies of yesterday, what advantage is 
gained ? Must he not, then, do penance to-morrow for his failure 
in the duties of to-day ? But if he can perform the duties of to- 
day, and at the same time pay up for the sins of yesterday, it is 
clear that he can do more than present duty — more than God 
requires ! And this, too, must be done by those who do not pre- 
tend to be perfectly holy ; so that we have the absurdity of an 
imperfect man, who, because he is imperfect, must do his duty 
imperfectly — performing the entire duty of to-day, and more — 
making satisfaction for the sins of yesterday ! A greater absurdity 
could not be imagined. Now, what is the presentduty of every man? 
" Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all 
thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength, and 
thy neighbor as thyself."* " Whether therefore ye eat or drink, 
or whatsoever you do, do all to the glory of God."t This is 
'present duty. Can any man, even if perfectly holy, do more ? 
If not, then it is clear that no one can make satisfaction for past 
sins. The doctrine of Rome is, therefore, both unscriptural and 
perfectly absurd. 

VI. After oMj of what advanto-ge is this doctrine? A man 
confesses his sins to a priest, and receives absolution. Can the 
priest look into his heart, and see whether he is sincere, or 
whether he is deceiving himself? He cannot. Neither can he 
determine anything concerning the degree of contrition he may 
feel. Suppose, then, he should grant absolution to one who 
ought not to be absolved; is his absolution worth anything? 
Surely not. What, then, must be the effect of the pretended ab- 
solution? It will deceive multitudes, saying to them "peace, 
peace, when there is no peace ;" while it can be of no possible ad- 
vantage to any. The Roman clergy have wickedly thrust them- 
selves into the seat of Jesus Christ, and undertaken to do that 
to which He only is adequate, who searches the heart, and tries 

* Mark xii, 30-31. t 1 Cor. x, 31. 



174 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

the reins, and who knows all things. The pious Protestant 
knows that every true penitent will be forgiven ; and, like the 
penitent publican, he goes to Him before whom his heart lies 
open — not to a poor erring mortal. 

VII. This doctrine, while it deludes the souls of men, promotes 
immorality, and dishonors Christ, also gives tremendous power to the 
clergy ! They hold, we are told, the keys, not of the visible 
church simply, but of heaven itself; and in vain may men seek 
to enter there, unless thei/ open the door. All must come and 
confess to them, even their most secret thoughts ; and the very 
fact that the priest knows his penitents so perfectly, gives him 
almost unlimited power over them. But he may grant absolution 
or refuse it — open the door of heaven or close it against them. 
All their hopes of happiness forever are suspended upon his de- 
termination to absolve or retain sins. Will not the superstitious 
Papist move at the bidding of his confessor ? Will he not do at 
his command things, from which his feelings, if he were left to 
himself, would revolt ? Ah ! how truly descriptive of the pope 
and his clergy, the language of Paul — *' So that he as God sit- 
teth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."* 
Such power in the hands of any class of men, especially such 
men as the great majority of the Roman clergy, must work incal- 
culable mischief to individuals and to society. Look at this 
power, and tell me whether there is anything surprising in the 
gross immorality of Roman countries, or in the absolute sway of 
the clergy. Who has not heard of the riots along the canals and 
public works, in our own country — riots among the members of 
the only true church ! — riots which the civil authorities could not 
quell — riots, which a Roman priest, when sent for and paid well, 
could quell in a moment, as by a charm ? Behold men, who 
boldly trample under foot the laws of God and man, become 
harmless as lambs, at the bidding of a priest ! And rememberj 
too, that the poicer that can quell the raging storm, can raise a 
storm^ when OMything is to be gained by it. There can be no 
safety where such power is possessed by any class of men. 

* Thessalonians ii. 



NO CONDEMNATION TO THOSE IN CHRIST. 175 



LECTURE VIL 

Rom. vUi, 1. "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which 
are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 

The phrase, '^ in Christ Jesus," is employed in the Scriptures 
to express the union which exists between all true believers and 
Jesus Christ. Faith forms the connecting link between the soul 
and Christ ; and therefore every believer is in Christ. The first 
epistle to the Corinthians is addressed " to them that are sancti- 
fied in Christ Jesus, called to be saints ;" and the Apostle says, 
^' If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature : old things are 
passed away, and ail things are become new." * It will not be 
denied that all believers or true Christians are in Christ Jesus. 

Now to such, the Apostle declares, there is tw condemnation. 
He had proved, in the preceding part of the epistle, that all men 
are sinful and are sinners ; and that, therefore, " by the deeds of 
the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight," With equal 
clearness he had shown how a sinner, penitent and believing, 
might be justified "But now the righteousness of God without 
the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the Prophets ; 
even the righteousness of God which is by the faith of Jesus Christ 
unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference, 
for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God : being jus- 
tified freely by the grace of God through the redemption that is in 
Christ Jesus," &:c. Every believer in Christ, according to the 
Apostle's doctrine, is justified, and enjoys peace with God. 
^^ Being justified by faith we have peace with God through our 
Lord Jesus Christ." f To such there is no condemnation ; their 
sins are all pardoned, and they are treated as being righteous for 
the sake of Christ. They are adopted, and made heirs of eternal 
life. Their sufferings in this life are not a satisfaction to divine 

* 2 Cor. v, 17. t Rom. v, 1. 



176 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

justice, but parental chastisements intended as a means of their 
preparation for future glory. " For whom the Lord loveth he 
chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth." * &lc. 
When they die there is no condemnation to them, but being 
freely justified and adopted they ascend to heaven. " And I 
heard a voice from heaven, saying unto me. Write, Blessed are 
the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth : yea, saith th 
Spirit, that they may rest from their labors ; and their works do 
follow them."t But -unbelievers, those Avho are not in Christ, 
are condemned, are under the curse of God's broken law ; and, 
if they die in this state, are lost forever. 

The conclusion to which we are authorized to come, is, that 
since, as the Apostle teaches, all believers are justified, and 
since, consequently, there is to them no condemnation, the doc- 
trines of Indulgences and Purgatory, as held and taught by the 
Romish clergy, are not true. That w^e may see distinctly how 
legitimate this conclusion is, we proceed to state, first, the doc- 
trine of indulgences, and afterwards, the doctrine of purgatory. 

An indulgence, say& the Dovvay Catechism^ is " not a pardon 
for sins to come, or leave to commit sin (as Protestants do falsely 
and slanderously teach), but a releasing only of such temporal 
punishments, as remain due to those sins which have already 
been forgiven us by penance and confession." J Since we quote 
the precise language of the Catechism, we shall not surely be 
charged w^ith slandering our Roman neighbors. 

The same Catechism informs us concerning the ground on 
which indulgences are granted — the source from whence they 
are drawn. " Gl. How doth an indulgence release those punish- 
ments?" A. By the superabundant merits of Christ and his 
saints, which it applies to our souls by the special grant of the 
church." It likewise informs us when the Saviour gave his 
church power to grant indulgences, viz. : '^ When he said to St 
Peter, ^ To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; 
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound in heaven, 
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in hea- 

* Heb. xii, 6. i Rev. xiv, 13. J 1 p. 94. 



THE CHURCH THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. 177 

ven.' Math, xvi, 19." And, finally, we are enlightened concern- 
ing the conditions required for gaining an indulgence, viz.: 
" That we perform the works enjoined us, and that the last part 
of them be done in a state of grace." These works are '' fasting, 
prayer, and alms deeds ; as also confession and communion." * 

Against this doctrine we enter our solemn protest, for reasons 
which I now proceed to assign. 

I. It is 7iever mentioned or alluded to in the Scriptures. 
The Roman clergy tell us that the right to grant indulgences 
was given to the church, when* our Saviour said to Peter : '• I Avill 
give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatso- 
ever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven," &c. I 
reply— 

1. That the phrase, "kingdom of heaven," signifies, not the 
kingdom of glory, but the church as it exists in the world under 
the New Dispensation. In this sense it is constantly employed by 
our Saviour in his parables and discourses. " Repent, for the 
kingdom of heaven is at hand." t '' The kingdom of heaven is 
likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field : but while 
men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, 
and went his way." '• The kingdom of heaven is like unto a net 
that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind." X These 
and many similar passages confirm the interpretation I have just 
given of the phrase in question. The Apostles of Christ were 
appointed as officers in the church of Christ on earth ; and to 
them he gave the keys of that church. By the keys they could 
open the doors of the church to those who gave evidence of being 
worthy to enter, and close them against those of an opposite cha- 
racter. Such being the meaning of the passage under considera- 
tion, it is clear that it gives not the least support to the doctrine 
of indulgences. 

But if we should even admit the Romish exposition of this pas- 
sage of Scripture, and acknowledge that Christ gave Peter power 
literally to remit sin, and open heaven to men and close it against 
them, still it gives no support to the doctrine of indulgences. 

* pp. 94, 95. t Math, iv, 17. % Math. xiii. 



178 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

An indulgence, we are told, is " a releasing only of such tempo- 
ral punishment as remains due to those sins which have already- 
been forgiven us by penance and confession." But in the pas- 
sage mainly relied on to prove the doctrine, not a word is said 
about temporal punishme7it due to sins forgiven, or about indul- 
gences. The Roman clergy seem to regard themselves as autho- 
rized by the power of the keys to resort to all manner of inventions 
— to forgive sins, not on the conditions mentioned in the gospel, 
but on any which they may choose to prescribe ! 

The case of the incestuous man mentioned in 1 Cor. v, and 2 
Cor. ii, is relied on to support this doctrine. But unfortunately 
for the argument, there is not a word in the whole history of that 
case about temporal punishment due to sins forgiven ; nor are 
any works mentioned which were to be performed in order to 
gain an indulgence; nor an indulgence once named. The man 
had been excluded from the church for his sins ; and when he 
• repented he was forgiven and restored to his standing in the 
church. There is not in the passage one idea that belongs to the 
doctrine of indulgences. The fact that it is appealed to in sup- 
port of the doctrine, shows how hardly its advocates are pressed. 

II. There is no such distinction as that made by the church of 
Romc^ between mortal and venial sins, and no temporal punishment 
due to sins which have been forgiven; and therefore the doctrine 
of indulgences, which pretends to remit the temporal punishment 
due to sins already forgiven, cannot be true. In the preceding 
discourse I proved, I think, conclusively, that these distinctions, 
invented by the Roman clergy, are both absurd and unscriptural ; 
that when the sins of believers are forgiven through Christ, the 
entire punishment due to divine justice is remitted. And in the 
text the Apostle declares in the most unqualified terms, that there 
is no condcmnatio7i (either to suffer temporal or eternal punish- 
ment) to them that are in Christ Jesus. 

ILL " The superabundant merits of the saints^^ from which^ as a 
common treasury^ indulgences are said to be obtained^ have no ex- 
istence in truth. Some of the saints, according to the Roman 
ckrgy, have not only a sufficient amount of merits to secure their 



WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION NOT POSSIBLE. 1 79 

own salvation, but even more than they need ; and these super- 
abundant merits form a kind of common stock, in the keeping of 
the Roman Pontiffs, out of which indulgences are granted to the 
less devout Papists ! A more absurd and presumptuous doctrine 
never was taught. What is the duty of every individual of 
Adam's race ? " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy 
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all 
thy strength ; and thy neighbor as thyself"* Can any one, even 
though perfectly holy, do more than this ? Certainly not ; and 
therefore, even the perfectly holy, if such persons could be found 
on earth, could do no more than their duty, and could have no 
"superabundant merits." "So likewise ye," said our Lord, 
"when ye shall have done all those things which are command- 
ed you, say. We are unprofitable servants : we have done that 
which w^as our duty to do."t Is there any room here for super- 
abundant merits or works of supererogation ? 

But the Roman clergy tell us there are certain counsels of 
Christ, the observance of which is meritorious, such as voluntary 
poverty, perpetual chastity or celibacy, and obedience or volun- 
tary submission to another's will. J These, we are told, are not 
commands, positively obligatory on all, but counsels or advice 
which may be followed by those aiming at a high degree of per- 
fection. But it is not true that Jesus Christ ever counseled all 
men to be poor. When a certain man asked him, " Good Mas- 
ter, what good thing shall I do that 1 may have eternal life?" 
and when the Saviour saw that he idolized his wealth, he tested 
his disposition to serve God by directing him, " If thou wilt be 
perfect (i. e. sincerely pious) go and sell that thou hast, and give 
to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven : and come 
and follow me."§ This direction the Roman clergy have con- 
strued into a counsel to all men to voluntary poverty. But it was 
a command^ not a counsel or matter of advice ; for obedience to 
it was made a condition of salvation. The man asked, not how 
he might do w^orks of supererogation or have a superabundance 

* Math, xxii, 37—39. f Luke xvii, 10. X Doway Cat., pp. 74—76. 

§ Math. xix. 16—26. 



180 R0M4NISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

of merits, but how he might secure eternal life ; and when the 
condition was mentioned, the young man " went away sorrowful ;" 
for he had great possessions. "Then said Jesus unto his disci- 
ples, Verily I say unto you, that a rich man shall hardly enter 
into the kingdom of heaven." 

Neither is it true that our Lord counseled all to live in a state 
of celibacy. On the contrary, when his disciples said, " If the 
case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry," he 
replied, *' All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom 
it is given. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."* 
And Paul, though in the peculiar state of the church in his day, 
when persecutions raged, he desired all to be as himself, said, "But 
every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and 
another after lhat."t 

Nor is it true that our Saviour ever advised or counseled men 
to be obedient to the will of others. He comvianded children to 
obey their parents, wives to obey their husbands, subjects to obey 
the powers that be, and Christians to obey them that rule over 
them ; but he gave no counsel or mere advice on this subject. 
Nay, it would be sin to be subject to the will of another, except 
in those things embraced in the law of Christ. 

What is the duty of every Christian to God his Saviour ? 
" Whether, therefore, ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all 
to the glory of God. "J If by poverty, or by celibacy, a Chris- 
tian can do more to the glory of God than by being rich or enter- 
ing into married life, he is solemnly bound to do it ; and he com- 
mits sin if he refuse. "Ye are not your own, for ye are 
bought with a price ; therefore glorify God in your body and in 
your spirit, which are God's. "§ Is it possible for the most emi- 
nent Christian to do more than is here required, as a matter, not 
of counsel or advice, but of obligation ? It is not ; and there- 
<.fore the counsels of which the Roman clergy speak — the follow- 
ing of which is supposed to secure "the superabundant merits" 
from which indulgences are drawn — have no existence ; they are 
among the "many inventions " of the church of Rome. 

* Math, xix, 10-12. f 1 Cor. vii, 7. X 1 Cor. x, 30. $ I Cor. vi, 19-20. 



WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION NOT POSSIBLE. 181 

The argument against the existence of " the superabundant 
merits of the saints " is still stronger ; for we have thus far pro- 
ceeded upon the supposition that some Christians may have done 
all that is commanded in the Scriptures ; but this is not true. 
For, in the first place, before they were converted, they were 
like others, sinners, condemned and exposed to the just penalty 
of God's law. And when converted they were converted by the 
gracious influence of the Holy Spirit, and "justified freely by 
the grace of God through the redemption that is in Christ." P 
would be easy to prove this ; but it will not be denied, even by 
the Romish clergy. So far, then, from having any merits, either 
to apply to others or to save themselves, they must say, with 
Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, " By the grace of God I am 
what I am." They are debtors for the grace bestowed; God is 
not their debtor for the works performed by the aid of that grace. 
"But I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the 
grace of God which was with me."* 

Nor is this all. For the most devoted Christian, so far from 
perfectly serving God, even by the aid of the grace imparted, 
daily fails in the discharge of his duty, and commits sin. James 
the Apostle, in his general Epistle, says, " In many things we 
offend all ;"t and Paul regarded himself as not " already perfect." 
When inspired Apostles confess that they are chargeable with 
sin, and affirm that the same is true of all believers, what are we 
to think of the Romish doctrine of the superabundant merits of 
the saints ? Who are the saints, but sinners saved by grace ? 
" For by grace are ye saved, through faith ; and that not of your- 
selves : it is the gift of God : not of ^works, lest any man should 
boast. "J And in the erection of the spiritual temple the " head- 
stone of the corner shall be brought forth with shoutings — grace, 
grace unto it."§ 

The Scriptures tell us of the sins of the saints, and of the grace 
of God abounding in their salvation ; but they say nothing of 
their merits, far less of their superabundant merits ! This is the 
language and the doctrine of proud, pharisaical Rome ; a doctrine 

* 1 Cor. XV, 10.. t Ch. iii, 2. X Eph. ii, 8-10. Zech. iv, 7. 



82 ROxMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

which, one would have thought, human pride, even in its greatest 
folly, could not embrace ; a doctrine which cannot stand for one 
moment, in the clear light of God's Word. 

IV. The merits of Jesus Christ, it is true, are infinite, and there- 
fore there can be no need for the merits of the saints, even if they 
had any ; hut the merits of Christ are not at the disposal of the 
Pope of Rome, or of the church. Where, in the Scriptures, are 
we told that his merits are placed in the hands of the clergy, to 
be distributed, according to their wisdom or folly, amongst men 
for the remission of sins ? 

Let it be remembered, that indulgences remit only temporal 
punishment due to sins already forgiven. Now either our Sa- 
viour did, by his suflTerings, make satisfaction for the sins of his 
people, both as regards the temporal and eternal punishment, or 
he did not. Bishop Trevern says, he did not. " What," says he, 
"did St. Paul fill up in his flesh? Temporal punishments. 
Now, what he filled up, was wanting, as he expresses it, of the 
sufferings of Christ. The temporal punishment of sin was 
therefore wanting, to fill up afterwards ; and Jesus Christ did 
7iot intend to include them in his sufferings, or coaseq^icntly to ex- 
empt from them his mystical body, which is his churchP * Now 
in view of this statement of the Bishop, we have a question to 
ask, viz. : If Jesus Christ did not intend to include in his suffer- 
ings the temporal punishment due to the sins of his people, by 
what right do the pope and his clergy now apply his merits, in 
the way of indulgences, to the remission of that temporal pun- 
ishment, which he did not include in his sufferings ? How can 
they so include that temporal punishment, which he did not in- 
clude in his sufferings, as to grant the remission of it, through 
his merits? In a word, how can they include in his atonement 
what he did not include, and apply his merits, as he did not in- 
tend they should be applied ? Can the clergy answer? 

But perhaps it will be said, Jesus Christ did make satisfaction 
for all the punishment due the sins of his people. Then, we 
ask, how can it be true, as the Roman clergy teach, that there 

* Arnica. Discuss, of Ch. of Eng., v, ii, p. 145. 



PLENARY INDULGENCES. 183 

remains due to their sins, after they are forgiven through 
Christ, a certain temporal punishment Avhich they must bear? 
Or, in other words, if the debt has been fully paid, how is it that 
a part of it remains yet to be paid? If our glorious substitute 
has paid it all, how is it that we must yet pay a part of it? 

Take either view of the matter, and the doctrine of Rome is 
proved false. If Jesus Christ did not make satisfaction for the 
whole punishment due the sins^of his people, then his merits 
cannot be applied, in the way of indulgences^ to the remission of 
the temporal punishment still due to sins forgiven. If he did, 
then it is not true that his people must endure a temporal punish- 
ment, and there is no need of indulgences, 

V. The conditions on which indulgences are granted^ and the 
use made of the doctrine^ prove it false and injurious. '* An in- 
dulgence," we are told, " may be either plenary or partial. A 
plenary indulgence, includes all the punishments to be under- 
gone by him to whom the indulgence is applied, after he has ob- 
tained the remission of his sins. A partial indulgence remits but 
a part of the same punishment." * I will now read a few ex- 
tracts in addition to the one just read, from a devotional book of 
the Papists, entitled True Piety ^ published by authority of Bishop 
David, late of Bardstown, Ky., showing on what conditions 
plenary or partial indulgences may be gained. On page 431, we 
read as follows : 

^' Indulgences of the Crowns, or Beads of the Blessed Virgin 
Mary, commonly called St. Bridget, when blessed by a priest 
specially authorized for this purpose. Whoever has these beads 
and says devoutly on the five decades, at least once a week, may 
gain a plenary indulgence, on each of the solemn feasts of Christ 
and the Blessed Virgin Mary : also, on those of St. John the Bap- 
tist, of St. Joseph, of the holy Apostles, and at the article of 
death ; besides many partial indulgences, as often as he recites 
the Beads, or does other pious works mentioned in the next arti- 
cle. They who recite them daily, may obtain the plenary in- 
dulgences once a month, on whatever day they may choose." 

* True Piety, p. 427. 



184 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

"Indulgences annexed to Crosses and holy Medals duly blessed 
•by a specially empowered priest, are granted to whoever piously 
wears those Crosses or Medals, or devoutly prays before them, 
whether he recites the divine office, or that of the Blessed Virgin 
Mary, or the Seven Penitential Psalms, or is used to teach Cate- 
chism, or performs other works of piety; he gains partial indul- 
gences, and may gain also a plenary indulgence on the great 
festivals of our Lord, and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Pius VI 
confirmed this concession in 1775." 

" Indulgences of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament. 
Whoever is duly admitted into it, by spending one hour at least 
in a year, in devout prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, on the 
day which he may choose on that day, on the first Thursday of 
every month, and at the article of Death, he may gain the plen- 
ary indulgence." 

These may serve as a specimen of plenary indulgences. We 
read a few of the partial indulgences. 

" 1 . Five years and five times forty days indulgence, for those 
who piously accompany the Blessed Sacrament to the houses of 
the sick; and one hundred days to those who, not being able to 
do so, will say the Lord's Prayer and the Angelical Salutation 
for the sick person." 

"One hundred days indulgence to those who salute each other, 
the one saying, Praised be Jesus Christ ; and the other answer- 
ing. Amen, or always^ or fore.ver. To those who have generally 
used this form of salutation during their life, a plenary indulgence 
is granted at the article of death. The like indulgences are 
imparted to those who teach others this holy practice." 

" Three hundred days indulgence to those who recite with 
devotion the Litany of the holy name of Jesus ; also an indul- 
gence of two hundred days to those who devoutly say the Litany 
of the Blessed Virgin, commonly called 'LorettoP 

Let these serve as a specimen of the indulgences granted by 
the pope and his clergy. Each of them is granted on conditions 
not only 'perfectly arbitrary^ but evidently unscriptural. They 
are perfectly arbitrary. No human being can see why the con- 



INDULGENCES BOTH UNSCRIPTURAL AND ABSURD. 185 

ditions which secure an indulgence of three hundred days^ might 
not secure one of five hundred or a thousand ; or why they should 
secure more than fifty or even ten. Nor can any one give a 
reason why the conditions which secure an indulgence of a hun- 
dred days, might not as well secure a plenary indulgence ; or why 
those which secure plenary indulgence, should gain one of more 
than three or four hundred days. The whole thing is supremely 
arbitrary ; and no possible reason can be assigned for any partic- 
ular indulgence, either as to its conditions or duration, except the 
sovereign pleasure of the pope and his clergy ; and there is no 
evidence whatever, that the indulgences granted by them are of 
any efficacy, save their unsupported assertion. 

The conditions are unscriptural. Look, for example, at the 
first plenary indulgence we mentioned, viz : " Indulgences of 
the crowns or beads of the blessed Virgin Mary." There are 
several singularly absurd and unscriptural things here, viz : 1. 
We are not informed in the Scriptures that Mary had any beads, 
or that she at all regards such toys. If it has been revealed to 
the pope and his clergy, that she does regard them, when and 
where was the revelation received ? and what is the evidence ? 
2. The beads are to be " blessed by a priest specially authorized 
for this purpose." No other priest, it seems, can bless them aright. 
Now so far as we can learn from the Scriptures or from any other 
source, the Saviour and his Apostles never blessed beads, nor 
authorized any one else to do so. What evidence have we, that 
the priest's blessing imparts any efficacy or sacredness to beads ? 
Have the pope and his clergy received a revelation on this sub- 
ject ? When and where ? If they have not (and I believe they 
do not pretend that they have), what evidence is there that saying 
prayers on the blessed beads will be of any service ? 3. More- 
over, this thing of praying on beads is an invention of the Roman 
clergy. We read of nothing of the kind in either the Old or 
the New Testament. 4. Nor do we there learn that the repetition 
of the same prayer again and again, is acceptable to God. The 
Scriptures do teach us, " that men ought always to pray ; " but 
the Saviour guards us against " vain repetitions," as offensive to 
8* 



186 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

God.* Yet the Roman clergy encourage such repetitions, as 
pleasing to God, and as particularly efficacious in securing the re- 
mission of sins ! Prayer is not, with them, the asking of our 
Heavenly Father for blessings needed by them or others, so much 
as a kind of penance performed for the purpose of gaining an 
indulgence ! What a perversion of the sacred privilege and duty of 
prayer ! 5. In order to gain the offered indulgence particular forms 
of prayer are prescribed ; or particular words are to be repeated. 
Now since the Saviour and the Apostles did not confine Christians 
to any particular forms of prayer, nor attach the least efficacy to 
one form more than another, it is evident that in requiring par- 
ticular forms of words to be used in order to gain an indulgence, 
the Roman clergy have departed from the word of God. 6. And 
then those prayers are to be repeated on particular days^ of which 
we read nothing in the Word of God, such as the feasts of Christ, 
of the Virgin Mary, of John the Baptist, &c. Where is the evi- 
dence that our Lord approves of the appointment of those days, 
or that prayers said at such times are more efficacious, than if 
offered on other days ? In the Scriptures we read of " the Lord's 
day," the holy Sabbath ; but no other day is there recognized as 
sacred. 

But the various uses made of the doctrine of indulgences prove, 
even more clearly, if possible, than the conditions of granting 
them, its falsity. They are most dishonoring to God and deeply 
injurious to men. 

i. Indulgences were used by the popes for the purpose of 
exciting their followers to engage in the Crusades — one of the 
most unscriptural and fanatical enterprizes which history records. 
It was an attempt to recover from the Turks Jerusalem and the 
land of Judea, called " the Holy Land." "It appears," says 
Bishop Trevern, "that Turpin, Archbishop of Rhemes (an. 963) 
granted plenary indulgences to those who should follow Charl- 
magne into Spain against the Saracens, and that Phocas Nicepho- 
rus II, not only wished them to be granted to those who made 
war with him against the same barbarians, but that those who 

* Math, vi, 7. 



CRUSADES MOST UNJUSTIFIABLE. 187 

fell in the expiditions might be declared martyrs. It was not there- 
fore Urban III (an. 1095), as it is commonly asserted, who first 
employed the expression plenary^ in the indulgences which he 
granted to such as should take up arms to deliver the Holy Land 
from the Turks. For the rest, if we consider how much it must 
have cost the Crusaders to leave their affairs, their customs, their 
country, their home, their friends and families, to expose them- 
selves to fatigues, dangers, hazards of land and sea, climates and 
battles, we shall find in these expeditions a continuance of satis- 
factory works, which certainly deserve the indulgences which 
Urban II and other pontiffs after him attached to them, provided 
that they were undertaken and finished in a spirit of penance, 
and with a pure zeal for religion."* 

The fact is here admitted (and the thing is justified) that the 
popes did excite men to engage in the wars of the Crusades by 
promising them plenary indulgences, and that by the same means 
they were encouraged to enlist in wars against the Saracens. 
Only think of it ! The professed vicars of Jesus Christ, the re- 
presentatives of " the Prince of Peace," hiring men to engage in 
war and bloodshed by dealing out to them the merits of Christ 
and his saints ! And this shameful trajfic (I know not what 
other word to use) justified by an eminent bishop in a book de- 
signed to be a vindication of his church ! That there have been 
justifiable wars, we admit; but that the Crusades were such, no 
man in his sober senses will pretend But even in justifiable 
war, who authorized the popes of Rome, or any body else, to ex- 
cite men to the bloody work by offering them the merits of Christ 
and his saints ? Whence have the popes derived their authority 
to use the merits of Christ in this way? 

By the same means the popes and councils excited their fol- 
lowers to the work of exterminating heretics. And all were re- 
garded as heretics who differed from them in faith. The Fourth 
General Council of Lateran, held at Rome under Innocent III, 
A. D. 1215, decreed, that "the Catholics that taking the badge 
of the cross, shall gird themselves for the extermination of here- 

* Arnica* Discuss., Vol. II, p. 165. 



188 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

tics, shall enjoy that indulgence and be fortified with that holy- 
privilege which is granted to them that go to the help of the Holy- 
Land." * Our Saviour and the xlpostles labored to convert error- 
ists by argument and reason ; but Pope Innocent and his council 
hire men to kill them by offering them the merits of Christ and 
his saints, in the form of indulgences^ as a reward ! 

Indulgences were also used for the purpose of raising money 
for the popes and their clergy, and especially for erecting that stu- 
pendous monument of anti-christian folly — St. Peter's church at 
Rome. This is admitted and justified by the Romish clergy. 
Bishop Trevern says — '^ If the abuses in collecting alms [money 
for indulgences] in Luther's time are to be condemned, where is 
the man of sense and good taste who could blame the intention 
of those alms ? Surely none of those who have visited and ad- 
mired that church, the most worthy monument which men ever 
erected with their feeble hands to the supreme Majesty of God." t 
Dr. Spaulding, in his review of D'Aubigne's History of the Re- 
formation, says, "About the beginning of the sixteenth century 
Leo X conceived the purpose of erecting in Rome a temple, 
which should far surpass, in dimensions and magnificence, any- 
thing that the world had ever yet seen. The origination of the 
plan of St. Peter's church was an idea worthy the mind of that 
magnificent Pontiff; and its erection, which he commenced, is the 
noblest monument to his fame. To promote an object so splen- 
did, he promulgated a bull, in which he promised ample indul- 
gences to all who would contribute to so laudable an under- 
taking. And, if there were no other proof of the utility of in- 
dulgences, the erection of that splendid temple, mainly due to 
them, is a monument which would alone suffice to remove every 
cavil on the subject. No one can enter that church without 
being forcibly impressed with the majesty of God and the gran- 
deur of the Christian religion. His soul becomes as colossal as 
the building itself" J Both Bishop Trevern and Spaulding, you 
perceive, admit and even affirm the fact, that St. Peter's church 
was erected mainly by the sale of indulgences ; and both justify 

* Breck. and Hughes' Dis., p. 81. + Arnica. Dis., vii, p. 165. % p. 79, 



SALE OF INDULGENCES A SOURCE OF REVENUE. 189 

in the strongest terms the use of the doctrine. Spaulding even 
contends that if there were no other evidence of the utility of 
indulgences, the erection of St. Peter's by means of them, would 
be abundantly sufficient ! That is, the fact that the popes of 
Rome could sell a sufficient quantity of the merits of Christ and 
his saints to build a large and splendid house, is sufficient to 
prove the doctrine of indulgences eminently useful^ if not trv£ I 
I am confident that every man whose feelings have not been 
strangely perverted and corrupted by the errors of Popery, will 
be shocked at the idea of selling the jnerits of Jesus — his groans, 
tears, sweat, and blood — for the purpose of building a splendid 
church ! Who has required at the hands of the popes the erec- 
tion of such a house ? Is Christianity a system of religion of 
such character that its "grandeur" can be seen only in such 
splendid edifices ? Is it indeed a thing so pompous, so like the 
world it came to reform ? But if it was proper or necessary to 
erect such a building, was there no other means of raising the 
money than the sale of the sufferings of Christ? Was ever 
anything like this heard of in the Christian church, or even in 
the Jewish, till the popes of Rome ventured upon it? 

The sale of Indulgences indeed was a most certain and effica- 
cious means of replenishing the pope's treasury, as often as it 
became overdrawn, or as he desired greater wealth and splendor. 
For this purpose regular collectors were appointed by the popes, 
who carried on a profitable business in the traffic in indulgences, 
and who, to increase the amount of their sales, did not hesitate to 
ascribe to them the most unbounded efficacy in securing the re- 
mission of sins, and the deliverance of those suffering in the 
flames of purgatory. " The General Council of Lateran," says 
Bishop Trevern (anno 1215, under Innocent III), ''to obviate 
abuses introduced by gatherers or receivers of alms [money for in- 
dulgences] ordained that in future they should be nominated by 
the Holy See, or by the diocesan bishops."* The same writer 
quotes from the Council of Vienna (anno 1311, under Clement 
V) the following decree: "It having come to our knowledge 

* Arnica. Discuss., vol. ii, p. 163. 



190 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

that several of that kind of collectors, by rash boldness, and to 
the seduction and ruin of souls, take upon them to grant, of their 
own pleasure, indulgences to the people, to dispense with vows, 
to absolve in confession from perjury, murder, and other sins, to 
calm the consciences of the possessors of goods unjustly acquired, 
for a sum of money to remit a third or fourth part of enjoined 
penances, to deliver from purgatory, as they boast of doing by a 
scandalous lie, and to transport to the joys of paradise the souls 
of the friends or relations of those who deposit alms in their hands, 
to give full remission of sins to the benefactors of those places 
where they collect, and further, to absolve, as they express it, from 
the punishment and the guilt : we, desirous of abolishing such 
abuses, which degrade ecclesiastical censures, and bring contempt 
upon the keys, forbid most strictly the commission in future, of any 
and all such unworthy practices. * * * We understand and 
direct that all collectors abusing their commission in these, or any 
other ways, shall be immediately punished by the bishops of the 
several places where they are found."* I quote these decrees of 
the counsels to show, that, while they condemned certain things 
done by the collectors of money in the sale of indulgences, they 
sanctioned the abominable principle, that the merits of Christ 
may be disposed of, and the appointment of collectors to sell them 
and raise money for the pope and his clergy. No wonder that 
such decrees, admitting and approving all that is detestable in the 
matter, failed to correct what they called abuses. If men are ap- 
pointed to sell the merits of the Son of God in the form of indul- 
gences, Avho will wonder that they, after the manner of other 
traders, make the best bargains they can ? When men have so 
far lost all correct sense of religion that they may encourage or 
engage in such traffic, they are prepared to do and say almost 
anything for money. Amongst the most celebrated dealers in 
indulgences in the beginning of the sixteenth century, was 
Tetzel, who passed through Germany as if in a triumphal pro- 
cession, and extolled in the most extravagant terms the efficacy of 
indulgences. '' The very moment," said he, " that the money 

* Ibid., p. 164. 



REFORMATION OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. 191 

clinks against the bottom of the chest, the soul escapes from pur- 
gatory and flies free to heaven." ^'Indulgences are the most 
precious and sublime of God's gifts." " O senseless people, and 
almost like to beasts, who do not comprehend the grace so richly 
ofl!ered ! This day heaven is on all sides open, and you now re- 
fuse to enter. When then do you intend to come in ? This day 
you may redeem many souls. Dull and heedless man, with ten 
groschen you can deliver your father from purgatory, and you 
are so ungrateful that you will not rescue him."* 

It is a part of the design of Infinite Wisdom to bring good out 
of evil. " Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee." The ex- 
travagance and impiety of Tetzel shocked the feelings of many 
who were yet sincere Papists. Some rays of light had penetrated 
the darkened mind of Martin Luther, then a devoted Papist. 
He lifted his voice against the abuses^ as they are called, of the 
sale ; but in examining the subject more fully, he came clearly to 
the conclusion that the doctrine is false, and therefore ought to be 
opposed. Bishop Trevern admits that at that time a disgraceful 
traffic in indulgences was carried on by ignorant and degraded 
men. "If," says he '^Luther had only risen up against the ig- 
norance of the preachers in his time, and the disgraceful traffic 
which was made of indulgences, he would have merited the ap- 
plause of the church, and of all succeeding ages."t Luther did 
this ; but he was constrained to see, as he looked more deeply 
into the subject, that the doctrine itself was false, and that so long 
as it was believed and taught, and the traffic sanctioned, nothing 
but unmitigated evil could arise from it. In the all-wise provi- 
dence of God the glorious Reformation of the sixteenth century 
grew out of the doctrine of indulgences as held and practiced 
by the Roman clergy. 

The Council of Trent, seeing the immense injury done to 
Rome by the disgraceful traffic in indulgences, suppressed the 
office of collector, SLYid ordained, that in future, indulgences should 
be published by the bishops, assisted by two canons of their re- 
spective chapters. So says Bishop Trevern.J That Council, 
* P'Aubigne's Hist., v. i, p. 212. f Amic. Discuss., v. ii, p. 165. t Ibid. 



192 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

however, did not condemn the practice, so abhorrent to every 
pious mind, of selling indulgences ; and so long as this may be 
done, it matters little whether the traffic be in the hands of the 
bishops and their agents, or in hands of men employed by the 
pope." 

One thing is clear, viz., that the doctrine of indulgences has 
been, and doubtless still is, a source of immense pecuniary gain 
to the pope and his clergy. Whatever other advantages or dis- 
advantages may attend the creed of Rome, the clergy seem never 
for a moment to have lost sight of the "filthy lucre." The 
various evil uses, therefore, to which the doctrine has ever been 
put, and put legitimately , as the pope and his clergy affirm, prove 
conclusively that it is not of heavenly origin. 

VI. This doctrine has been, and is, a source of immense power, 
as well as wealth, to the Roman clergy. They hold, as they pre- 
tend, the keys of the kingdom, of heaven; and they can, at their 
pleasure, unlock its abundant treasures, to release their votaries 
from the temporal, as well as the eternal pains due their sins. 
The confessional is resorted to for deliverance from the latter, 
and indulgences to save them from the former. The dread of the 
fires of purgatory, and regard for departed friends, represented as 
now enduring the terrible tortures of that middle state, impel the 
superstitious Papist to venerate the fearful power of the clergy, 
and to tremble at the thought of giving them offense. Nor do 
the priesthood fail, on all occasions, to impress it on the minds of 
the people, that the opening to them of " the celestial treasures " 
in indulgences, depends upon their liberality. Pope Pius IX, 
has recently announced ''to the Catholic universe " an indulgence 
in the form of jubilee, in doing which he claims to exercise 
" Apostolic liberality to the faithful in Jesus Christ !" How 
tremendous the power over the people, secured to the clergy by 
the doctrines of priestly absolution and Papal indulgences ! The 
very fact that these doctrines place power so unlimited and 
so easily abused in the hands of poor, imperfect men, proves them 
to be the invention of ambitious priests. The gospel elevates Jesus 
Christ, and humbles men ; but Popery elevates the priest-hood. 



DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY UNSCRIPTURAL. 193 

We now turn to the inquiry whether there is such a place as 
purgatory. In regard to it the Council of Trent gives us very 
limited information, simply affirming that " there is a purgatory, 
and the souls detained there, are helped by the prayers of the 
faithful, and particularly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar." 
The Catechism of Trent says, "Amongst them [the places of de- 
parted spirits] also is the fire of purgatory, in which the souls of 
just men are cleansed by a temporary punishment in order to be 
admitted into their eternal country, into which nothing defiled 
entereth."* 

We deny the existence of any such place as purgatory, and 
proceed to assign our reasons. 

I. Of HEAVEN and hell we constantly read in the Scriptures^ 
but such a place as purgatory is not once mentioned. This is 
not denied. Roman writers do not pretend to find the name of 
that middle place in either the Old or the New Testament. How 
shall we account for the fact ? If there had been a purgatory, to 
which believers dying in venial sin go, and where they endure 
terrible sufferings by way of preparation for heaven, would not 
some one of the inspired writers have named it ? Was there not 
as good reason for mentioning it by name, as heaven or hell ? In 
reading the writings of Papists we constantly meet with purga- 
tory ; why do we never find it named by inspired writers 1 Sim- 
ply because they knew of no such place. It is true they pre- 
tend that the word hades, translated hell, sometimes means or 
includes what they call purgatory ; but of this they give no evi- 
dence whatever. 

II. Purgatory, we are told, is a place where true believers, 
dying in venial sin, or charged with the temporal punishment due 
to mortal sin, make satisfaction to divine justice, and are purified 
from remaining defilement; but, as we have already proved, there 
is no such thing as venial sin, and no temporal punishment for 
sins forgiven to be endured by believers. To them " there is no 
condemnation." Consequently, there can be no such place as a 
purgatory for inflicting such punishment. All the arguments we 

9 *p. 51. 



194 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY, 

have advanced against the Romish division of sins into mortal 
and venial, and against the doctrine of a temporal punishment 
still due to sins forgiven, lie in full force against the existence 
of purgatory ; for, if these distinctions of sins and punishments 
be not true, there can be no middle state of punishment for 
believers. 

III. The Holy Spirit shed on us abundantly through Jesus 
Christ, comfletely sanctifies the souls of believers; and therefore 
they are not purified, as Rome teaches^ in the fires of purgatory, 
Jesus Christ is made to his people " wisdom, and righteousness, 
and sanctification and redemption."* His instructions are to 
them a perfect guide ; his righteousness secures a perfect justifi- 
cation from all the punishment due their sins ; his Spirit imparts 
to them perfect sanctification — preparing them for the happiness 
of heaven ; and his entire work as mediator, is to them a com- 
plete redemption from all the evils of sin. Nothing, therefore, is 
left to be accomplished by the sufferings of a middle state. And 
in further and complete confirmation of this truth, the Apostle 
Paul teaches that " Christ also loved the church, and gave him- 
self for it ; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing 
of w^ater by the Word ; that he might present it to himself a glo- 
rious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing ; but 
that it should be holy and without blemish."! How could the 
Apostle have taught in clearer language that Jesus Christ, by the 
means of grace he has appointed, and by the agency of his Spirit, 
of which water — mentioned in the passage just quoted — is the 
emblem, and not by purgatorial fires, will perfectly sanctify his 
church ? 

The same truth is beautifully expressed in the language of 
" one of the elders," who said of those whom John saw clothed 
with white robes, and palms in their hands. " These are they 
which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their 
robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."J Not 
one of that happy throng had made his garments white, even in 
part, either by his great tribulations on earth, or his sufferings in 
* 1 Cor. i, no. t Epli. V, 25-27. % Rev. viii, 14. 



DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY UNSCRIPTURAL. 195 

purgatory. All had washed their robes and made them white, 
spotlessly white, in the blood of Jesus. To his atonement, sim- 
ply and exclusively, they owed all their purity. John, and the 
** elder " who addressed him, knew nothing of satisfaction ren- 
dered by man to divine justice, or of purity obtained in purgato- 
rial flames. 

To enable men to pay a part of the price of their salvation, 
and to claim the merit and the praise, Rome greatly detracts from 
the honor due to Christ and to the Holy Spirit — as if the work 
of each of the persons in the Trinity were imperfect. Every 
system of religious error dishonors God, and exalts man. Rome 
does these things in a higher degree than any other church under 
the sun. 

IV. Neither the burning of fire, nor any other kind of punish- 
ment inflicted, can produce or perfect holiness in the human heart. 
Divine judgments may bring men to pause and reflect, but the 
Holy Spirit only can impart holiness to the heart. Where, in 
the Scriptures, are we taught the absurd doctrine that material 
fire can operate on spirit, or that punishment of any kind can 
sanctify? We shall presently examine the passage in 1 Corin- 
thians, referred to in support of this doctrine. 

V. I now proceed to examine the passages of Scripture relied 
on to prove the existence of purgatory. The first we notice is 
2 Maccabees xii, 43-46. Certain Jews had been slain in battle, 
and their friends found concealed under their garments some of 
the votive offerings of the idols, and concluded hence that they had 
been slain because of their sin. And Judas, after making a collec- 
tion, sent to Jerusalem twelve thousand drachms of silver *' for 
sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead." The writer adds, 
'* It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the 
dead, that they may be loosed from sins." To this I reply : 

1st. That the books of Maccabees are not a part of the inspired 
Scriptures ; were never admitted into the canon of the Jewish 
church (which church. Papists say, was infallible) ; were not 
quoted by the Saviour and his Apostles ; and were rejected by 
many of the most eminent of the Christian Fathers. This I 



196 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

proved in a preceding lecture. This book, therefore, being unin- 
spired, cannot prove the truth of any doctrine ; especially since 
we know it was written in a very corrupt period of the Jewish 
church's history. 

2d. But it is a fact, which is conclusive on this subject, that in 
the law of Moses, where special directions are found concerning 
all the sacrifices to be offered, and the particular design of each, 
none are appointed to be offered for the dead. How shall we ac- 
count for this? Nor is this all ; for there is not in the Old Tes- 
tament the most distant intimation that any such sacrifices were 
ever offered ; though we have accounts of the death and burial 
of multitudes slain in battle, as well as of those who died a na- 
tural death. It is evident, therefore, that this is one of the many 
corruptions which about that time were introduced into the wor- 
ship of God, and which were severely condemned by our Sav- 
iour, when he condemned the traditions of the Jews. 

3d. It is likewise a fact, which puts the matter beyond contro- 
versy, that although we have in the Old Testament, as well as in 
the New, many prayers of holy men left on record, there is not 
one petition offered for the dead. If inspired men had regarded 
it as " a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead," would 
they not have prayed for them ? And in the Psalms, where we 
find so many prayers recorded, prayers offered up on so many 
and so various occasions, would there not have been so much as 
one petition for the pious dead ? These considerations are abun- 
dantly sufficient to set aside for ever, the argument founded on 
the language now under consideration. 

The next passage of Scripture relied on is Luke xii, 58, 59. 
" When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as 
thou art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered 
from him; lest he should hale thee to the judge, and the judge 
deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison. I 
tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence till thou hast paid the very 
last mite." Compare Math, v, 25, 26. But here we find not a 
word about temporal punishment due to sins forgiven, or about 
venial sins^ or about purifying the soul from sin — the only things 



DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY UNSCRIPTURAL. 197 



for which purgatory is required. Moreover, it is not intimated 
that those cast into prison will ever be able to pay the last farth- 
ing of the debt. If a man be imprisoned for debt, and the sen- 
tence of the law be that he remain in prison till he pay it all • 
does this sentence imply that he will ever be able to pay? Cer- 
tainly not. So that, if we admit the language under considera- 
tion to refer to a future state, the prison may be hell^ and the 
punishment eternal. 

In connection with this let us notice the argument founded on 
Mark iii, 29. " But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy 
Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damna- 
tion." Or, as it is expressed in Math, xii, 32, "it shall not be 
forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come." 
Here, say the Roman clergy, it is evidently implied that some 
sins are forgiven in the world to come. This cannot be in hea- 
ven or in hell ; therefore it must be in purgatory. I answer, 
when men so interpret Scripture as to make it flatly contradict 
itself, they are evidently in error. In the passage just now 
under review they make the Saviour declare that no man who 
goes to purgatory shall escape thence until he have paid the ut- 
termost farthing, i. e., have suffered all that is due from him to 
divine justice ; but here they make him teach that some fart of 
the debt shall be remitted ; some sins for which he deserved to 
suffer shall be forgiven. Now if he pay the uttermost farthing, 
either by his own sufferings, or by the offerings of friends on 
earthj how^ can anything be forgiven % And if any part of the 
debt be forgiven, how can he pay the uttermost farthing? Those 
wise interpreters, who claim the exclusive right of expounding 
God's Word, make the Saviour flatly contradict himself, and there- 
fore their interpretation of his language is false. 

The truth is, his language does not imply that some sins of 
men are forgiven in the future world. It simply asserts, in a very 
emphatic manner, that the sin against the HoJy Ghost is unpar- 
donable ; and so precisely Mark has it — " hath never forgiveness." 

Strangely enough. Bishop Milner appeals, in support of this 
doctrine, to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, in Luke 



198 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

xvi, 19-31. LazaruSj it is said, died, and was carried by the 
angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and 
went to hell ; and, seeing Lazarus afar off in Abraham's bosom, 
he cried, "Father Abraham, have mercy on me," &c. But 
whatever this passage may mean, it certainly proves nothing in 
favor of purgatory; for it is said of Lazarus, "he is comforted'^'* 
and purgatory is certainly not a place where departed spirits are 
comforted. But Milner thinks it at least proves the existence of 
a middle state — the Limho Patrum^ as it has been called — where, 
it is supposed, pious men who died before the death of Christ, 
were detained in a happy state until his resurrection. The place 
where Abraham and Lazarus were, was not heaven, he contends ; 
" otherwise Dives would have addressed himself to God instead 
of Abraham." * This is truly singular logic to come from a 
Roman Bishop. If Abraham and Lazarus had been in heaven, 
the rich man, says Milner, would have prayed to God, not io 
Abraham ; and yet this same Bishop, in another part of his book, 
contends strongly for the propriety of praying to the saints who 
are in heaven ! So that, according to his reasoning, the rich 
man had too much sense to do precisely what the Roman clergy 
teach all their followers to do ! But suppose Abraham was in 
limbo, was not God present there as well as in heaven ? and 
might not the rich man, therefore, have addressed his prayer to 
God? "If I make my bed in hell; behold, thou art there." 
This passage proves nothing in favor of limbo^ much less in 
favor of purgatory. 

The next passage confidently appealed to in proof of the exist- 
ence of purgatory is 1 Cor. iii, 10-15. " According to the grace of 
God which is given to me as a wise master-builder, I have laid 
the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man 
take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can 
no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any 
man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, 
wood, hay, stubble ; every man's work shall be made manifest : 
for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire ; 

* End of Con., Let. xliii. 



DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY UNSCRIPTURAL. 199 

and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any 
man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive 
a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer 
loss : but he himself shall be saved ; yet so as by fire." 

Now let us examine this passage carefully. Does it say any- 
thing about venial sins^ to be punished in purgatory ? Not a 
word. Does it say anything about temporal punishment due to 
sins already forgiven ? It does not. Then it says nothing favor- 
able to the existence of purgatory. The Apostle represents the 
church as " God's building," and himself as " a wise master- 
builder" — a skilful architect ; and he warns other ministers of the 
gospel not only to be careful to build on the right foundation, but 
to build with the right kind of materials., such as gold, silver, and 
precious stones, not wood, hay, and stubble. If they should teach 
error, and thus introduce unworthy persons into the church, they 
would injure the church and themselves ; but if by preaching the 
truth, they were the means of bringing true converts into the 
church, they would both contribute to the erection of the building 
of God, and increase their own happiness. For every man's 
work would, on the day of judgment, be subjected to a scrutiny 
as severe as that to which metals are subjected, when tried by 
fire. And as wood, hay, and stubble would be at once consumed 
by fire, so would the false teaching and bad works of men be re- 
jected by God. This is evidently the general meaning of the 
passage. 

But let us look a little more closely at it. Does the Apostle 
say that men shall be punished by fire for the sins committed be- 
fore death ? He does not. Does he say their souls shall be 
purified by fire from remaining pollution? Nothing of the kind. 
What does he say ? Why, he says every man's work shall be 
made manifest; and the fire shall try, every man's work of what 
sort it is. Bat Papists say the fire of purgatory shall punish and 
purify his soul. Again he says, " If any man's tvork abide" — 
stand the test — [ not if his soul be punished or purified ] " he shall 
receive a reward." " If any man's work [not his soul] shall be 
burned," — if it stands not the test, but is proved bad — " he shall 



200 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

suffer loss," i. e., he shall lose the reward he would have received; 
"but he himself shall be saved," because though his work was 
defective, he built on the right foundation, was a true Christian ; 
" yet so as by fire " Observe, the Apostle does not say he shall 
be saved hy fire^ but so as^ or as if by fire. That is, he shall 
undergo a most strict scrutiny, and will " scarcely be saved." The 
fact that such a passage as this is appealed to in proof of the 
existence of purgatory, proves most clearly how little there is in 
the Scriptures that can be tortured into an argument favorable to 
the doctrine. 

The last passage I shall examine is 1 Peter iii, 18-20. "For 
Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that 
he might brmg us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but 
quickened by the Spirit: by which also he went and preached 
unto the spirits in prison, which sometime were disobedient, 
when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, 
while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls 
were saved by water." This passage is perhaps more confidently 
relied on, to prove the existence of purgatory, than any other. 
Christ went and preached to the spirits in prison. He did not 
preach to those in heaven, nor to those in hell ; and therefore he 
must have preached to some in a middle state — in purgatory. 
Thus the Roman clergy reason. To this 1 reply : 

1st. That those to whom Christ preached were not in prison 
at the time he preached to them ; though they are in prison now. 
The Apostle says he preached to the spirits in prison — that is, 
the spirits now in the prison of despair. The Doway Bible, it is 
true, has it — " he came and preached to those spirits who were in 
prison ;" but here, as in several other places, the Roman clergy 
have corrupted the Word of God to make it sustain their corrupt 
faith. In the original Greek there are no words answering to the 
words ^^ who were^^ in the Doway Bible. Peter simply said, 
Christ preached tois enphulake pnewmasi — to the spirits in prison. 
Those two words, therefore {who were)^ are an interpolation, a 
corruption of the Scriptures, materially altering the sense. 

2d. According to the doctrine of Rome, only the righteous who 



DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY UiN SCRIPTURAL. 201 

die in venial sin, or have temporal punishment due to forgiven 
transgressions yet to endure, go to purgatory. It is a place, ac- 
cording to the Catechism of Trent, " where the souls of just men 
are cleansed by a temporary punishment." But those to v^hom 
the Saviour preached were the ungodly who were disobedient, 
who exhausted the long-suffering patience of God, so that in his 
wrath he swept them from the earth by the most terrific judgment 
ever known to our race ! Of them, Peter in his second epistle, 
speaks thus, " For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but 
cast them down to hell, 6lc. — and spared not the old world, but 
saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bring- 
ing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly ; and turning the 
cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, &c. — the Lord knoweth 
how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to reserve the 
unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished."* The spirits 
to whom Christ preached are here put with the fallen angels and 
the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, as of similar character 
and destiny ; are represented as uiigodly, reserved unto the day 
of judgment to be punished. And yet this abominably wicked 
generation is represented by the Roman clergy as a generation 
oi just men who went to purgatory to be " cleansed by a tempo- 
rary punishment, in order to be admitted into their eternal country, 
into which nothing defiled entereth !" So sorely are they pressed 
for proof of the existence of purgatory. 

3d. But why should the Saviour preach to souls in purgatory ? 
The design of preaching is either to instruct and urge men to the 
discharge of their duty, or to comfort them in their afflictions. 
The Apostles were directed to go and teach all nations to observe all 
the commands of Jesus ; and Isaiah was bidden to comfort God's 
people — " Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God." 
But there would be no propriety in urging those suffering in pur- 
gatory to the discharge of duty ; for Bishop Trevern says — 
" Whatever may be the kind of torments with which souls are 
there afflicted, we know, and it ought to satisfy us to know, that 
they are in a state of suffering, unhappy and unable to help them- 
* 2 Peter ii, 4-9. 



202 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

selves. For them the time of probation is past. * * * No 
more good works can they pursue ; there are no more alms to be 
distributed, no more satisfaction to be offered to heaven ; only 
one method remains of making satisfaction — that of suffering,"* 
There surely would be no propriety in urging persons so per- 
fectly helpless to the discharge of duty. And if the Saviour 
preached in order to comfort them, he would only detain them 
longer in purgatory; for they must suffer just as much as their 
remaining sins deserve, and be purified by suffering from all their 
remaining pollutions. In the name of reason, then, what would 
be the use of preaching to souls in purgatory ? 

4th. Why, if preaching were necessary for souls in purgatory, 
has there been no such preaching since the Saviour is said to 
have preached there ? Roman priests, bishops, and cardinals, 
and even popes, it is true, are supposed to go to purgatory ; but 
they go, not to preach to others, but to suffer for their own sins, 
and to be purified from their own corruptions ; and their breth- 
ren who remain on earth say masses, perhaps great numbers of 
;hem, for the repose of their souls, to deliver them from the 
James of purgatory ! It has not been long since Gregory XVI 
was remembered in this way ! 

5th. But the meaning of the passage under consideration is 
sufficiently plain to those who have no false doctrine to support 
by perverting it. Jesus Christ was quickened by the Spirit, by 
which Spirit, and not in his own person, he preached to the ante- 
diluveans ; for Noah, as Peter says, was " a preacher of right- 
eousness" — preached to them under the inspiration of the Spirit. 
He was one of the " holy men of God, who spoke as they were 
moved by the Holy Ghost." 

VI. The doctrine of a purgatory^ true or false, is a source of 
great potver and wealth to the Roman clergy. They sit in " the 
tribunal of penance," and, with the authority of God himself, 
claim to remit or retain the eternal punishment due to sin. They 
hold the keys by which the treasures of the merits of Christ and 
his saints are unlocked, and distributed in the form of indul- 
* Arnica. Discuss, v. ii, pp. 171-172. 



DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY A SOURCE OF POWER. 203 

gences ; and they only can say masses for the souls in the flames 
of purgatory. And the Council of Trent were careful to teach 
that those unhappy spirits " are helped by the prayers of the 
faithful, and particularly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar ;" 
and the Council further made provision for the payment of money 
for masses. " Let the bishops," say they, " take care that the 
suffrages of the living faithful, viz., masses, prayers, alms, and 
other v^orks of piety which the faithful have been accustomed lo 
perform for departed believers, be piously and religiously ren- 
dered, according to the institutes of the church ; and whatever 
services are due to the dead, through the endowments of deceased 
persons, or in any other way, let them not be performed slightly, 
but diligently and carefully, by the priests and ministers of the 
church, and all others to whom the duty belongs." 

As death approaches, the devout Papist, instead of being filled 
with joy and triumph in the prospect of speedily entering into 
his heavenly rest, is filled with terrible fears of the tormenting 
flames of purgatory, in which he may suffer during an indefinite 
period. He has learned from his priest that nothing is so effica- 
cious in relieving him from those pains, as the sacrifice of the 
mass. He is, therefore, extremely anxious to secure the largest 
possible number of masses for the repose of his soul. If he is 
rich, especially if he has lived a life of pleasure and not of pen- 
ance, he deems it necessary to leave a very large sum to the cler- 
gy to pay for them. Perhaps he will establish a monastery, or 
donate a large amount of real estate. How much better to do 
so, than to burn from year to year in purgatorial flames ? If the 
man be poor, yet it is most desirable that his soul be delivered 
from purgatory at the earliest possible period. He has, there- 
fore, the strongest possible inducement to take from his widow 
and fatherless children that which is absolutely necessary to their 
comfort, if not to their very existence, to pay for masses for the 
repose of his soul. But friends may, by paying money, have 
masses said for departed friends. The poor wife, scarcely able 
by her daily toil, to keep her children from starving, is tormented 
with the reflection that her beloved and lamented husband is now 



204 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

writhing in the flames of purgatory. She increases her toil, and 
takes every farthing that can possibly be spared without starving 
herself and children, to hire the priest to say masses for his soul. 
Thus, by this doctrine of man's invention, not only are the cler- 
gy greatly enriched, but the poor are yet more impoverished, and 
made doubly wretched. 

The doctrine is not only false, but cruel. It robs the dying 
believer of the peace bequeathed him by his Saviour, and robs 
his family of the comforts, and often of the necessaries, of life. 
Who would have believed that the glorious gospel, whose bene- 
volent office it is to bind up the broken-hearted, and to comfort 
the mourner, would ever have become, in the hands of its pro- 
fessed ministers, the most terrible instrument of oppression and 
cruelty ? 

But the clergy are enriched ; and this, with them, seems to be 
regarded as the one thing needful. By means of this doctrine, 
more than any other, they have got possession of a very large 
proportion of the real estate in every country in which Popery 
has prevailed. Nor is it possible, by any system of legislation, 
to prevent them doing the same thing in every country on the 
globe, where their system shall gain an extensive footing. 



DIVINE INSTITUTION OF THE SACRAMENT. 205 



LECTURE VIII. 

1 Cor. xi, 26. "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do 
show the Lord's death till he come." 

We have here an inspired account of the institution of the 
the Lord's supper. The Saviour had now finished the work his 
Father gave him to do. He had confirmed his claims to be the 
Son of God by multiplied miracles, had preached the gospel from 
city to city, in Judea, and had gathered out of the world those 
who were the chosen instruments to introduce the New Dispensa- 
tion. It remained for him, by offering himself as a victim, to meet 
the claims of divine justice against his people, that God might 
be just and the justifier of those who believe in him. Before he 
suffered he chose to partake of the Passover with his disciples for 
the last time, and then to appoint in its stead an ordinance com- 
memorative of his death, to be observed till the end of the world. 
" The same night on which he was betrayed," having partaken 
of the Passover, " he took bread : and when he had given thanks, 
he brake it and said. Take, eat : this is my body which is broken 
for you : this do in remembrance of me. After the same man- 
ner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying. This cup 
is the new testament in my blood : this do ye, as oft as ye drink 
it, in remembrance of me. For as oft as ye eat this bread, and 
drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." 

There is no difficulty in understanding the nature and design 
of this simple, yet deeply impressive institution. The broken 
bread and the wine poured out represent the crucifixion of the 
Son of God, by which his body was broken and his blood shed 
for the remission of the sins of many. These emblems are to be 
received as a memorial of his sufferings. " This is my body 
which is given for you: this do in remembrance ofmeJ^* " This 

* Luke xxii, 19. 



206 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in rememhraiice of TneP* Even Chris- 
tians are too prone to forget the love and sufferings of their Sav- 
iour. He therefore appointed in his church a sacrament to be 
observed by his people, in which, by means of significant emblems, 
the solemn scenes of Calvary should be often brought vividly be- 
fore their minds, and impressed deeply on their hearts ; that they 
might affectionately remember him '' who loved them and gave 
himself for them." But this sacrament is designed not only to 
preserve, in the minds of the people of God, a lively recollection 
of the sufferings of their Saviour, but also •' to show (or proclaim 
to others) the Lord's death till he come." This object is distinct- 
ly stated in the text. The all-important doctrine of salvation by 
faith in Jesus Christ is by it preached to others, as well as im- 
pressed more deeply on the minds of believers. And there, as 
the children of God sit together and partake of the sacred loaf, 
the ordinance proclaims the v/aity of the church. " For we being 
many are one bread, and one body ; for w^e are all partakers of 
that one bread." And as they form one body, so they hold fel- 
lowship with Christ the head, and with each other. " The cup of 
blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of 
Christ ? The bread w^hich we break, is it not the communion of 
the body of Christ?"! In partaking of the emblems of the body 
and blood of our Lord we do, in the most solemn manner, 
profess our allegiance to him, and bind ourselves to serve him 
faithfully: and therefore it ma}^ be termed, in the strict sense of 
the w^ordj a sacrament — a word which originally signified a mili- 
tary oath, taken by Roman soldiers to be faithful to their country. 
And as in keeping the commandments of God '• there is great re- 
ward": so in the observance of this ordinance — the most simple, 
solemn, and impressive of any ever appointed for the edification 
of the church — rich blessings are secured. 

Widely different from the view now presented of the Lord's 
supper, is the doctrine of Rome. So wonderfully has the Lord's 
supper been changed and corrupted by the Roman clergy, that its 

* 1 Cor. xi, 25. t 1 Cor. x, 17. 



DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 207 

identity is completely lost. The faith of Rome is embraced in 
the following particulars : 

1. " That by the consecration of the bread and wine, the whole 
substance of the bread is converted into the substance of the body 
of Christ our Lord, and the whole substance of the wine into the 
substance of his blood ; which conversion," says the Council of 
Trent, " is by the Catholic church fitly and properly called 
transubstantiation." In the canon passed on this point, the Coun- 
cil use the following language. " Whosoever shall deny that in 
the most holy sacrament of the eucharist there are truly, really, 
and substantially contained the body and blood of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, together with his soul and divinity, and consequently 
Christ entire ; but shall affirm that he is present therein only in 
a sign or figure, or by his power ; let him be accursed." 

2. That " Christ, whole and entire, exists under the species of 
bread, and in every particle thereof, and under the species of wine, 
and in all its parts." 

3. That inasmuch as the consecrated bread and wine are, each 
of them, the Lord Jesus Christ, whole and entire, therefore they 
are to receive divine worhip which is due only to God, and are to 
be carried in processions through the streets and public places to 
be adored by the people. " Whoever." says the Council of Trent, 
" shall affirm that Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to 
be adored in the holy eucharist with the external signs of that 
worship which is due to God ; and therefore that the eucharist is 
not to be honored with extraordinary festive celebration, nor 
solemnly carried about in processions, according to the laudable 
and universal rites and customs of holy church, nor publicly pre- 
sented to the people for their adoration ; and that those who wor- 
ship the same are idolators : let him be accursed." 

Against this doctrine we enter our solemn protest, and proceed 
to prove it untrue. 

I, The first reason we assign for rejecting the doctrine of tran- 
substantiation, is — that it necessarily involves absurdities and con- 
tradictions the most glaring. I cheerfully admit that we are, in 
expounding the Sacred Scriptures, to understand them according 



208 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 



to their literal meaning, unless the nature of the subject, or the 
context, forbid it, or the literal interpretation involve palpable 
absurdities or contradictions. That the subject and context for- 
bid the literal interpretation of the words, " This is my body," 
and that such an interpretation is absurd and contradictory, I 
am prepared to demonstrate. 

1. In the first place, then, according to this doctrine, our Lord 
changed bread and wine, not simply into flesh and blood, but 
into himself! The consecrated wafer is declared to be no longer 
bread^ but really and truly Jesus Christ himself; and the same 
thing is affirmed of the consecrated wine. Now I cheerfully ad- 
mit that Christ could change bread into flesh, and wine into 
blood, as easily as in Can a of Galilee he converted water into 
wine ; but I do most positively deny that he could change either 
bread or wine into himself. He could change the water into 
wine at the wedding; but he could not have changed either 
water or wine into the governor of the feast. The very state- 
ment is so grossl}^ absurd, so outrages the common sense of every 
man, that it neither requires nor admits of refutation. That I 
am myself, and that nothing else can be myself, body and mind, 
are propositions that do not require to be proved to any sane 
man. That Jesus Christ, administering his supper to his disci- 
ples in an upper chamber in Jerusalem, was himself, and that no 
other substance could become Jesus Christ, cannot be proved, 
simply because it is self-evident. Christ is indeed omnipotent ; 
but omnipotence does not perform absurdities. 

2. According to the doctrine I am opposing, Jesus Christ held 
himself in his hands, broke himself, and distributed himself to 
the Apostles ! For by the consecration, we are told, the bread 
was so transubstantiated that it was no longer bread, but Christ 
himself And it is a fact that after the consecration (if there 
was any such thing), he broke the bread (that is, himself), and 
distributed it to his disciples. By what mode of argumentation 
shall I attempt to prove such a thing absurd and impossible? Is 
anything more necessary, than simply to state the thing? 

3. If this doctrine be true, then each of the Apostles received 



DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION ABSURD. 209 

and eat Jesus Christ, whole and entire, twice^ before his death, 
and while yet he was standing before them conversing with 
them ! For we are told that Christ, whole and entire, exists un- 
der the species of bread and every particle of it, and under the 
species of wine and every particle of it. So that our Saviour was 
taken and eaten twenty-four times before he suffered, and whilst 
he was yet before his disciples ! Shall I adduce argument to 
prove to any man of common sense that this is a monstrous and 
impious absurdity? 

4. This doctrine requires us to believe the human body and 
soul of Christ to be in heaven, and, at the same time, in ten 
thousand places on earth ! Or rather, that he has ten thousand, 
yea, ten thousand times ten thousand souls and bodies — all which 
are one and the same soul and body ! That he rose from the 
dead and ascended to heaven, where he is at the right hand of 
the Father, the Roman clergy teach ; and yet they require us to 
believe that his human body and soul are present wherever on 
earth there is a consecrated wafer or consecrated cup cf w^ine ; 
and that this same soul and body are daily taken and eaten by a 
real " manducation," by multitudes of Romanists ! Was there 
ever a human being, left to the exercise of his own faculties, who 
could be induced to credit these monstrous absurdities and im? 
pieties ? 

It is vain to attempt to escape from the difficulty by calling the 
doctrine a great mystery. A mystery is something above our 
comprehension ; but it involves no contradiction of universally 
admitted truths, no palpable absurdities. The doctrine of the 
Trinity, for example, is mysterious ; but no candid man can say 
that there is either absurdity or contradiction in the statement, 
that there is a sense in which God is one^ and another sense in 
which he is three. Whilst all admit the mode of the divine ex- 
istence to be incomprehensible, none can pretend that the doc- 
trine of the Trinity contradicts any known truth. These re- 
marks apply equally to the human and divine natures of Christ. 

II. The doctrine of transubstantiation contradicts the testimony 

of our senses. The bread, after the consecration, looks like bread, 
9# 



210 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

tastes like bread, and feels like bread ; and the wine looks and 
tastes like wine. We have, therefore, in relation to the bread, the 
testimony of three of our senses, and in relation to the wine, the 
testimony of two of them, against the doctrine. Now what evi- 
dence had the Apostles that Jesus Christ existed on the earth? 
They had the testimony of two of their senses, viz: sight and 
feeling. We have, therefore, more evidence that the consecrated 
bread and wine are nothing but bread and wine, than the Apostles 
had of the incarnation of Christ. And what evidence have we 
that our Lord said — " This is my body ? " We have the testimony 
of one of our senses ; but we have the testimony of three of them 
that the bread has undergone no change by the consecration, and 
consequently that he did not design to be understood literally. 

God has so constituted our minds that we cannot doubt the 
testimony of our senses in regard to things of which they are 
competent to take cognizance. It will not answer to call the 
doctrine of tran substantiation a great miracle. For in the Scrip- 
tures it is never so represented ; and, besides, all the miracles of 
which we read in the Bible were obvious to the senses, and did 
not, in a single instance, contradict their testimony. There is not 
on record a solitary instance in which God ever required any one 
to discredit the testimony of his senses. Aside from the monstrous 
absurdity of the doctrine, therefore, it is far more likely that the 
Roman clergy have greatly erred, and corrupted the sacrament of 
the Lord's Supper, than that such a requisition has been made in 
this particular instance. 

III. But, it will be said, the Saviour has taught the doctrine, 
and required his disciples to believe it ; and, therefore, however 
contradictory or absurd it may appear to us, we must believe it or 
renounce Christianity. I reply, that his language, so far from 
teaching it, plainly teaches just the opposite. It is, by the way, 
not a little remarkable that the Roman clergy, who insist that the 
Bible is a very obscure book, which can be understood only by 
an infallible interpreter, do yet with equal positiveness assert that 
it plainly teaches the particular tenets of their church ! That 
the doctrine of Rome is wholly unsustained by the Scriptures, 



DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION ABSURD. 211 

will appear evident to the candid and impartial, from the follow- 
ing considerations : 

1. The Protestant interpretation is sustained by the usage of 
Scripture phraseology, as well as by general usage. What is 
more common than to say of a portrait of Washington — " there 
is George Washington?" It was perfectly in accordance with 
common usage that Joseph, in interpreting the dreams of Pharoah, 
said — " The seven good kine are seven years ; and the seven good 
ears are seven years — and the seven empty ears blasted with the 
east wind shall he seven years of famine."* And therefore it was, 
that Daniel, when explaining to Nebuchadnezzar the meaning of 
the great image he had seen in a dream, said, " Thou o,rt the 
head of gold."t Hence, too, our Saviour said to John the Apos- 
tle — " The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches ; and 
the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches." J 
So universal, indeed, is this mode of speaking, it is a wonder that 
any one should ever have thought of insisting on a literal inter- 
pretation of our Saviour's language, especially since such an 
interpretation carries with it such absurdities as 1 have mentioned. 

2. But let not the audience suppose that the Roman clergy 
insist upon interpreting literally all our Saviour's language about 
his Supper. They go only so far as they feel constrained to go, 
in order to sustain their favorite doctrine. When he says, " This 
is my body ; " they interpret his language literally, and add to it 
" soul and divinity ; " but when he says — '' This cup is the New 
Testament in my blood," they are as far as Protestants from adopt- 
ing a literal interpretation. They do not believe that the cwp is 
literally a new testament ; and yet the Saviour says, it is, just as 
plainly as he says of the bread, " it is my body." They do not 
even believe that the contents of the cup are a testament. Why 
do they insist on a literal interpretation of a fart of our Saviour's 
language, and adopt a different interpretation of another part on 
the same subject ? 

3. The bread and wine are still called bread and wine, after 
what the Papists consider the consecration of them. " The cup 

* Gen. xli, 26, 27. f Dan. ii, 38. % Rev. i, 20. 



21-2 ROxMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood 
of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion 
of the body of Christ ? " — " For we are all partakers of that one 
bread.''^* Here it may be important to remark, that in this pas- 
sage the cup is declared to be '' the communion of the blood of 
Christ." Will the Roman clergy contend that the cwp is lite- 
rally a communion ? Surely not. Let them, then, give up their 
literal interpretation, and adopt the common sense view of the 
subject. But the fact to which I wish to direct your particular 
attention, is, that the partaking of the Lord's supper is here rep- 
resented as the breaking of bread. So also in the succeeding 
chapter the Apostle says — '' For as often as ye eat this bread^ and 
drink this c^j9," &c. '^ Wherefore whoever shall eat this breadj 
and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the 
body and blood of the Lord ;" that is, such persons are guilty of 
dishonoring the body and blood of the Lord by disregarding the 
sacramental emblems of his sufferings. Again '' But let a man 
examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of 
that cupV If Paul believed that the consecrated bread was 
really the body of Christ, why did he still call it bread ? If he 
believed that it had been changed into Christ himself, why was 
he so profoundly silent about the divine worship to be given to 
him in the sacrament ? Similar language is found in Acts ii, 42, 
where the disciples are represented as continuing " in breaking of 
bread ;^' for Roman writers affirm that this breaking of bread was 
partaking of the Lord's supper. If they are right in this, they 
are surely in serious error when they teach that the bread, after 
consecration, is not bread ; for if it was not, how could the disci- 
ples continue in breaking bread 1 The doctrine of transubstan- 
tiation, tlierefore, is wholly inconsistent with our Saviour's teaching 
— is the grossest possible perversion of his language. 

But there remains one portion of Scripture, as yet unnoticed, to 
which the Roman clergy appeal with much apparent confidence, 
in support of transubstantiation, viz. : the sixth chapter of the 
gospel by John. The doctrine, they contend, is fully proved by 

* 1 Cor. X, 



DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION UNSCRIPTURAL. 213 

such language as the following : " And the bread that I will 
give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world. The 
Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this 
man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, 
Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son 
of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you," &c. This 
language they insist on understanding literally, and as relating 
to the sacrament of the Supper. To this interpretation we ob- 
ject — 1st. That the discourse of our Lord, from which I have 
quoted, was delivered, not to his disciples, but to the unbelieving 
Jews, some time before the Supper was instituted. I say, the 
discourse was delivered to the unbelieving Jews. Of this any one 
can satisfy himself by reading the chapter in question. This is 
an important fact; for Bishop Trevern urges, as a conclusive ar- 
gument in favor of transubstantiation, what he calls* " the disci- 
pline of secresyP He says — " Every person who will pay any 
attention to the history of the first ages of the church will be 
struck with a point of discipline which I propose here to investi- 
gate with you, and which regards the inviolable secresy observed 
by all the faithful on the sacraments, and especially on that of 
the altar. Jesus Christ gave it as a precept to his disciples, when 
he commanded them, under figurative expressions, not to give that 
which is holy to dogs, nor to cast pearls before swine. When he 
instituted his august sacrament, he would have none but his 
Apostles for witnesses ; and we see that after his example the 
Apostles never celebrated but in secresy."* Yet this same 
Bishop labors to prove that our Saviour, instead of concealing 
this sacrament from the profane, did fully and plainly teach it to 
" the Jewish multitude," in the discourse now under considera- 
tion ! t " The conversation between Jesus and the Jewish multi- 
tude, which cannot be sufficiently meditated upon, commences at 
the 25th verse. * * * The secret hitherto concealed is now 
divulged : the great mystery is declared : it has been heard ; it 
has been understood to signify a real presence ; but will this real 
presence be believed?" &c. Here is a palpable contradiction. 

* Arnica. Discuss., vol. i, pp. 260, 261. f Ibid., v. i, pp. 195, 196. 



214 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

For if Jesus Christ did conceal the nature of the sacrament of the 
Supper from the unconverted, it is certain that he did not teach it 
to the unbelieving Jews ; and if he did teach it to them, there was 
no such secret discipline as he pretends, and upon which he 
founds a lengthy argument for his doctrine, 

2d. We are certainly to suppose that our Saviour, when he 
addressed the Jews concerning the conditions of salvation, and 
urged them to comply with those conditions, intended to make 
himself understood. But if^ in the discourse m the sixth chapter 
of John, he had reference to the Lord's Supper, his hearers could 
not possibly have understood him j for that sacrament was not 
instituted until the evening on which he was betrayed. His 
language, therefore, could have conveyed no instruction to their 
minds. 

3d. If this discourse has reference to the Supper, it flatly con- 
tradicts the doctrine of Rome ; for the Saviour said — " Whoso 
eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life ; and i 
will raise him up at the last day." Again — " He that eateth of 
this bread shall live forever." Now if the Saviour^ by the words 
flesh and bloody means the transubstantiated bread and wine, he 
teaches that whoever takes the consecrated wafer and wine will 
certainly live forever. This, however, the Roman clergy do not 
believe, for even Luther and Calvin, while Papists, did receive 
them. Moreover, the final perseverance of the saints is not one 
of the doctrines of Rome. On the contrary. Papists believe tliat 
they do fall from grace as often as they commit mortal sin. 

4th. But the occasion of delivering the discourse and the ex- 
planations given by our Lord, prove conclusively that he had not 
the remotest allusion to transubstantiation. He had miraculously 
fed the multitude ; and when, the next day, they resorted to him 
again, he said to them, "ye seek me, not because ye saw the 
miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled." 
And from this circumstance he took the opportunity of impress- 
ing on their minds some important religious truths. "Labor 
not," said he, " for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat 
which endureth unto everlasting lifcj which the Son of man shall 



DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION UNSCRIPTURAL. 215 



& 



give unto you." The Jews, on hearing this language, inquired 
anxiously, " What shall we do that we might work the works of 
God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work 
of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." They de- 
manded a sign, and referred to the manna their fathers ate in the 
wilderness. Our Saviour then taught them plainly that he was 
the "bread of life ;" that they must eat his flesh and drink his 
blood. But this language was sufficiently explained; for he 
said, '^ I am the bread of life ; he that cometh to me shall never 
hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." To 
eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, as he explained his 
language, is to believe in him as the Saviour of men^ by the break- 
ing of whose body, and by the shedding of whose blood, sinners 
must be saved. He did not mean what Bishop Trevern calls 
" real manducation," the literal eating of his flesh and drinking 
of his blood ; for he said, still further, " It is the Spirit that 
quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak 
unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." As Nicodemus un- 
derstood him, when speaking of the new birth (John iii), to mean 
the natural birth ; so did the Jew^s understand him, no less erro- 
neously, to speak of the literal eating of his flesh ; and the church 
of Rome has fallen into the same monstrous error. 

IV. The changes made by the Roman clergy in the hordes Sup- 
per, prove conclusively the erroneousness of their faith. It cannot 
be doubted that the infinitely wise Saviour instituted and admin- 
istered the ordinance just as he designed it to be observed by his 
church in all succeeding generations. If there had been good 
reasons for administering it in a diflerent manner, those reasons 
must have been known to him, and would have induced him to 
act accordingly. We are authorized to conclude, therefore, that 
the sacrament of the Supper, just as it was administered by him, 
is best adapted to express the truth, and to secure spiritual bene- 
fits to those who partake of it ; and, consequently, the very clear- 
est evidence a church or an individual could possibly give of hav- 
ing a faith which is not the faith of Christ, would be the fact that 
it had constrained them to lay impious hands upon his sacred 



216 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

ordinance, and materially to alter it. Just such evidence of cor- 
ruption have the Roman clergy given. Let us inquire into those 
alterations. 

1st. The Roman clergy have taken the cup from the laity and 
non-officiating clergy. The fact is clear (and it is admitted by 
the Council of Trent) that Jesus Christ did administer the Sup- 
per in the use of both bread and wine, and did thus deliver it to 
his Apostles. " The sacred Council, therefore, taught by the Holy 
Spirit, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of coun- 
sel and piety, and following the judgment and practice of the 
church, doth declare and teach that the laity and non-officiating 
clergy are not bound by any divine precept to receive the sacra- 
ment of the eucharist in both kinds ; nor can any one who holds 
the true faith, indulge the slightest doubt that communion in either 
kind is sufficient to salvation. For although Christ the Lord did 
in the Last Supper institute this venerable sacrament of the eucha- 
rist in the species of bread and wine, and thus delivered it to the 
Apostles ; yef it does not thence follow that all the faithful in 
Christ are bound by divine statute to receive both kinds. Nor 
can it be fairly proved from the discourse recorded in the sixth 
chapter of John, that communion in both kinds is commanded by 
the Lord, howsoever the same may have been interpreted by various 
holy fathers and doctors.'.' It may be well just here to remark, 
that the Roman clergy agree with the Fathers when the language 
of the Fathers suits them ; and contradict them when it does not. 
But you will note the distinct admission, that our Saviour in 
instituting the Supper, did use both bread and wine, and did de- 
liver the institution as thus appointed, to the Apostles. By what 
authority, then, did the Council of Constance or the Council of 
Trent take the cup from the laity, and administer to them but 
half the sacrament? The Council of Trent profess, indeed, to 
be guided by the Holy Spirit ; but this profession is grossly false 
— for the Holy Spirit never dishonored Christ by changing insti- 
tutions which he had appointed. He, the Saviour said, would 
teach his Apostles all things, and bring all things to their remem- 
brance, " whatsoever I have have said unto you ;" but he w-^^ 



DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION UNSCRIPTURAL. 217 

not sent to change Christ's ordinances. When, and to whom, 
did the Holy Spirit reveal the fact, that our Saviour did not de- 
sign to have his Supper administered as he had instituted it ? 

The Council further say, that in making this change they fol- 
lowed the judgment and practice of the church. But suppose 
the assertion true, what are the judgment and practice of the 
church against the authority of Jesus Christ? It is not true, 
however ; for they themselves admit, that " various holy fathers 
and doctors " held a different doctrine, which they could scarcely 
have done, if the judgment and practice of the church had been 
against them. Bishop Milner acknowledges that the cup was 
not taken from the laity by established law until the 15th cen- 
tury. "It appears," sajT-s he, "that in the 12th century, only 
the officiating priest and infants received under the form of wine, 
which discipline was confirmed at the beginning of the fifteenth, 
by the Council of Constance, on account of the profanations and 
other evils resulting from the general reception of it in that form."* 
We shall notice this statement in a few minutes. 

Strangely enough, Milner attempts to prove that Christ and 
the Apostles did sometimes, in administering the sacrament, use 
bread alone. For proof he refers to Luke xxiv, 30-31. "And 
it came to pass, as he (Christ) sat at meat with them," — -that is, 
two of his disciples — '' he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, 
and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew 
hun ; and he vanished out of their sight." But there is not a 
particle of evidence that in this instance the Saviour administered 
the sacrament to them ; and, therefore, the argument is worth- 
less. He also adduces Acts ii, 42 — " And they continued stead- 
fastly in the Apostle's doctrine and fellowship, and in the break- 
ing of bread, and in prayers." The Bishop assumes, that by the 
brealdvg of bread is meant the reception of the Lord's Supper ; 
and from the fact that wine is not mentioned, he infers that it was 
not used. But even if we admit that this phrase has certain refer- 
ence to the Supper, the inference drawn by the Bishop is wholly 
unwarranted. The Supper, it is admitted, was originally insti- 

* End of Con., Let. xxxix, p. 241. 



218 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY, 

tuted by the use of both bread and wine ; and it cannot be denied, 
that where it is particularly described, as in I Corinthians xi, 
both elements are mentioned. The cause must be hardly press- 
ed, when one of its ablest advocates can sustain it only by assum- 
ing that a certain phrase refers to the ordinance in question, and 
inferring^ simply because the cup is not mentioned, that the Apos- 
tles in their practice departed from the institution as administered 
by Christ himself. If we reason legitimately at all, we must 
conclude that they administered the Supper just as he did, until 
the contrary is proved by positive evidence. Just as well might 
we assert that baptism was sometimes administered without the 
use of water, or without the use of the name of the Trinity, be- 
cause it is frequently spoken of as having been administered, with- 
out water or the Trinity being mentioned ! 

The language of Paul, in 1 Cor. xi, 27, is appealed to in sup- 
port of the law which forbids the cup to the laity. " Wherefore, 
whosoever shall eat this bread and [or] drink this cup of the 
Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the 
Lord." Roman writers contend that instead of the words " and 
drink^'' the true reading is ^^ or drink ;^^ and hence they infer that 
the use of either the species of bread or wine is sufficient: To 
this we reply — 1st. That it is, at least, doubtful whether the ori- 
ginal reading was kai (and) or e (or). The Alexandrian man- 
uscript, and Syriac version, which was made in the first or 
second century, together with the Arabic and Ethiopic versions, 
read andy instead of or. 2d. But if we admit that the passage 
should read, eat or drink, the inference that the cup may be dis- 
pensed with is not legitimate ; for in the immediate connection 
the Apostle states particularly, that our Saviour administered the 
cup as well as the bread, and gives not the slightest intimation 
that it would be proper, under any circumstances, to make such 
a change. He also uses such language as this : " For as often 
as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's 
death till he come." Again— "But let a man examine himself 
and so let him eat of that bread, and drmk of that cup. For he 
that eateth a}id drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damna- 



WITHHOLDING THE CUP NOT DOCTRINAL, 219 

tion to himself," &-c. Can any one doubt whether Paul admin- 
istered wine as well as bread to the people. Does he intimate 
that bread alone was ever used in this sacrament ? 

But the church of Rome, we are told, had "just and weighty- 
reasons" for withholding the cup from the laity and non-officiat- 
ing clergy. This is surprising indeed. We know that our Sav- 
iour had the very best reasons for administering his Supper as he 
did ; for he never acted without such reasons. We know, more- 
over, that all the reasons for a contrary practice, which have been 
given by the Roman clergy, were known to him ; and had they 
been worth anything, would have induced him to administer the 
Supper as they do. How, then, can any rational man believe, for 
one moment, that their reasons for departing from the original 
mode of administering the Supper, are good 1 Let it not be for- 
gotten that the taking of the cup from the laity is, as Milner 
says, a matter, not of doctrine^ but of ^^ variable discipli7ie ;^^ and 
that in matters of discipline the Roman clergy do not pretend to 
infallibility. Jesus Christ was infallible in matters of discipline, 
as well as doctrines and morals ; the Roman clergy (or church) 
confessedly are not : and yet they, in their fallibility, change a 
most important ordinance appointed by him who knows all things! 
Nay, more: they denounce anathema against those who venture 
to deny that they had "just grounds and reasons" for this bold 
proceeding ! — anathema against those who believe that the Lord 
Jesus Christ was wiser than they ! * 

But let as look at the reasons assigned for the change. Bishop 
Milner says it was made in the fifteenth century, " on account of 
the profanations, and other evils resulting from the general recep- 
tion of it in that form."t What the profanations, and other evils 
were, he does not state. But what a charge is impliedly brought 
against his church by the statement he makes ! Strange indeed, 
that a Roman bishop, zealously defending his church, as the holy, 
apostolical church, should intimate that the Lord's Supper could 
not be administered by her clergy, as Jesus Christ administered 
it, without profanations so great that she was constrained to take 

* De com. sub. utraque specie. f End of Con., Let. xxxix. 



220 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

from the people, and also from the non-officiating clergy, one- 
half of it ! Verily, if such was the state of things in the fifteenth 
century, it was time to cease to administer it at all, until the 
church could be purified. Surely there must have been urgent 
necessity for the Reformation of the 16th century ! But the state 
of things cannot be much better now ; for the same grossly un- 
scriptural practice is still kept up. 

The Catechism of the Council of Trent assigns several reasons 
for the change, which require a brief notice. 

1. "In the first place, the greatest caution was necessary to avoid 
accident or indignity, which must become almost inevitable, if 
the chalice were administered in a crowded assemblage." If this 
reason was of any weight against administering the cup to the laity, 
would it not have occurred to our Saviour and his inspired Apos- 
tles ? When, under the ministry of the Apostles, tens of thou- 
sands, both of Jews and pagans, were converted, and when there 
were no houses of worship m which the sacraments could be ad- 
ministered, would not this difficulty have been much greater than 
at a later period ? How happened it, then, that our Saviour gave 
no intimation that he purposed having his Supper administered 
without the use of wine ? And how happened it that the Apos- 
tles passed no such law as that enacted by the Roman clergy? 
Bishop Milner acknowledges that the law by which the cup was 
taken from the laity and non-officiating clergy, was not enacted 
until " the beginning of the fifteenth century," when this high- 
handed measure was adopted by the Council of Constance ! * 
How are we to account for the fact, that for fifteen hundred years 
the necessity of this law, although greater than at the time it 
was enacted, never appeared either to the Apostles or to the 
church? The truth is, the doctrine of tran substantiation had 
then recently come into existence ; and the law was made to suit 
the false doctrine. If the. doctrine held by Protestants is true, 
evidently the taking of the cup from the laity is both unnecessary 
and improper. The difficulty mentioned by the Catechism of 
Trent does not exist, if our doctrine be true. The very fact that 

* End of Con., Let. xxxix. 



WITHHOLDING THE; CUP UNSCRIPTURAL. 221 

the Romish faith admits and requires a change in the Lord's 
Supper from the original institution, is one of the clearest evi- 
dences of its falsity. 

2. " In the next place," says the Catechism, " the Holy Eu- 
charist should be at all times in readiness for the sick, and if the 
species of wine remained long unconsumed, it were to be appre- 
hended that it may become vapid." We scarcely know whether 
we should most admire the logic of the Roman clergy, or be 
astonished at their gross inconsistency and impiety. They rea- 
son thus : the sick cannot always be accommodated with wine, 
therefore neither the laity nor the non-officiating clergy ought to 
receive it ! Would not the logic have been equally good, if they 
had concluded to take the cup from the officiating clergy also % 
But mark the inconsistency and impiety of their reasoning. 
They assure us that the wine is, by the consecration of the priest, 
converted or transubstantiated into Jesus Christ himself; and then 
they tell us, this same wine, which is really not wine, but Jesus 
Christ himself, will become vapid if it remain long unconsumed ! 
There is no true Christian, we verily believe, whose feelings 
would not be shocked by such a statement ! But this difficulty, 
like those just noticed, it seems, did not occur to our Saviour and 
his inspired Apostles. It was left for the superior wisdom of the 
Roman clergy to discover it ! The truth is, the Saviour and the 
Apostles did not regard this sacrament as in itself efficacious, or 
at all necessary for the sick and dying. They, therefore, had no 
difficulty about the keeping of the wine. But the Roman clergy 
have wholly changed the nature and design of the sacrament ; 
and then out of their new doctrine arises the difficulty they men- 
tion, and the consequent necessity of taking the cup from the 
laity. The change is made to suit the doctrine. 

3. The Catechism assigns a third reason for mutilating this 
sacred ordinance, viz. : " There are many who cannot bear the 
taste or smell of wine." This reason scarcely deserves a mo- 
ment's notice. It shows, however, how difficult the Roman 
clergy feel it to be to justify their conduct in laying profane hands 
on the ordinance of Christ. There are very few who labor un- 



222 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

der any difficulty of tasting or smelling wine ; and if the number 
were much greater, no reasonable man would think of doing 
more to meet the difficulty, than to permit such persons to omit 
the use of it. Who would ever have thought of depriving the 
whole church of the use of one of the elements used by our 
Saviour, because one in a thousand might dislike the taste of 
it ! But did not this difficulty (if it be a difficulty) exist at the 
time the Supper was instituted, and during the ministry of the 
Apostles? Why, then, did our Lord use wine ? And why did the 
Apostles pass no law forbidding the cup to the laity? Or do the 
Roman clergy claim to be wiser or better than Christ and the 
Apostles ? 

4. The last and, perhaps, the most singular reason for this un- 
scriptural law, is thus stated by the Catechism * " Finally, a cir- 
cumstance which principally influenced the church [i. e. the pope 
and his clergy] in establishing this practice, means were to be 
devised to crush the heresy which denied that Christ, whole and 
entire, is contained under either species, and asserted that the body 
is contained under the species of bread without the blood, and the 
blood under the species of wine without the body. The object 
w^as attained by communion under the species of bread alone, 
which places, as it were, sensibly before our eyes, the truth of 
the Catholic faith." * In view of this reason, which, it seems, 
was the principal one for taking the cup from the laity, I have 
two remarks to make, viz.: 1st. It is certainly a singular mode 
of crushing heresy, to mutilate one of the most important ordi- 
nances appointed by the Head of the Church. One would 
naturally have thought that heresy would be more readily 
crushed by preserving and defending the ordinances just as 
they were instituted by Infinite Wisdom. 2d. But it is here 
distinctly admitted that the Romish faith is much more clear- 
ly and strikingly exhibited by taking the cup from the laity, 
than by administering the sacrament as our Saviour admin- 
istered it. This is truly an important and instructive ac- 
knowledgment. We know that our Saviour designed by the 
* See Catechism of Trent, pp. 171, 172. 



WITHHOLDING THE CUP UNSCRIPTURAL. 223 

administration of his Supper, to exhibit the true faith in the clear- 
est and most impressive manner. Will any one venture to deny 
this ? Will any one dare affirm that he instituted this important 
sacrament so as not, in the fullest and best manner, to exhibit the 
truth ? But it is acknowledged by the Roman clergy that the 
Supper, as instituted and administered by him, does not very 
strikingly exhibit their faith. They confess, that those whom 
they denounce as heretics, did gaiii great advantage to their views 
by appealing to the ordinance as originally administered by Jesus 
Christ ; that the advantage was so great that they determined to 
crush the heresy by mutilating the ordinance, and forbidding the 
cup to the laity and non-officiating clergy ! And they declare 
that by this change the object was attained ; because it <* places, 
as it were, sensibly before our eyes, the truth of the Catho- 
lic faith." Now it is certain that the ordinance, as instituted 
and administered by our Saviour, does most strikingly exhibit 
the true Christian faith. It is acknowledged by the Roman cler- 
gy, that as thus administered, it exhibits most impressively the 
faith of Protestants.* And it is confessed, that as administered 
by Christ, it does not exhibit forcibly, if at all, the Roman faith ; 
so far from it, that the clergy have actually changed it, and for- 
bidden the people to receive it as administered by him, in order 
to make it set forth their faith. In view of these facts, let me 
ask every man of common sense, who holds the true Christian 
faith, Protestants or Papists ? Who are the true successors of 
the Apostles, those who retain the ordinances as administered 
by Christ Jesus, and whose faith is thus most strikingly exhibit- 
ed ; or those who, to make this most important sacrament teach 
their faith, have essentially changed it ? 

2d. But the doctrine of Rome is proved false by the additions 
made to the Lord's Supper, as well as the subtractions. Inter- 
preting literally the words of our Saviour — *^This is my body " 

* '' I do not deny, that in their [Protestants] mere figurative system, 
there may be some reason for receiving the Hquid as well as the solid sub- 
stance, since the former may appear to represent more aptly the blood, 
and the latter the body." End of Con., Let. xxxix. 



224 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

, — _- m 

— they add, in order to make out the doctrine, the important and 
significant words, " soul and divinity,'*^ " Whosoever," says the 
Council of Trent, " shall deny, that in the most holy sacrament of 
the eucharist, there are truly, really, and substantially contained 
the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, together ivith his 
soul and divinity, and consequently Christ entire, let him be 
accursed." As the taking of the cup from the people was neces- 
sary to sustain the doctrine of transubstantiation, so is this un- 
scriptural addition equally necessary ; for it would not do to say 
that the living body of Christ is separated from his soul and 
divinity ? Where, in the Scriptural account of the Lord's Sup- 
per, do we find anything about the presence of his soul and di- 
vinity ? If such a thing were true, it is most unaccountable that 
the Apostles, instructing the ignorant in their epistles, said nothing 
about it If the Protestant doctrine is true, their teaching is just 
what it should have been — nothing is omitted. 
\ 3d. The mode of. administering the Lord's Supper proves con- 
clusively, that it is not the ordinance instituted by our Saviour, 
In a devotional book, the title of which is True Piety, pubhshed 
by the authority of the Rt. Rev* Bishop David, late of Kentucky, 
I read as follows : " When the priest gives you the blessed sacra- 
ment, saying, The body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy 
soul to life everlasting^ Amen ; receive it with a lively faith, a 
profound humility, and a heart inflamed with love. At the time 
of your receiving, let your head be erect, your mouth opened 
moderately wide, and your tongue a little advanced, so as to rest 
upon your under lip, that the priest may convey the blessed sacra- 
ment into your mouth ; which being done, shut your mouth, let the 
sacred host moisten a little on your tongue, and then swallow it 
down as soon as you can, and afterwards abstain awhile from 
spitting. If the host should chance to stick to the roof of your 
mouth, be not disturbed, neither must you put your finger in your 
mouth to remove it, but gently and quietly .remove it with your 
tongue, and so convey it down. And then return to your place, 
and endeavor to entertain, as well as you can, the guest whom you 



I 



IMPIOUS WORSHIP OF THE HOST. 225 

have received."* Go, read the inspired accounts of the admin- 
istration of the Lord's Supper, and contrast them with these ridi- 
culous and disgusting directions, and say whether Rome has not 
wholly corrupted the sacred ordinance. If the Protestant doc- 
trine is true, the language of our Saviour, ^' take, eat — drink ye all 
of it," is all that is necessary. 

V. That the doctrine of transuhstantiation is false^ is further 
proved by the worship the church of Rome requires to be given to 
the consecrated bread and wine. The doctrine teaches that the 
bread and the wine, after consecration, are each the Lord Jesus 
Christ, body, blood, soul, and divinity. Accordingly, the Coun- 
cil of Trent anathematizes every one who ventures to affirm " that 
Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored in the 
holy eucharist with the external signs of that worship which is 
due to God." And the same Council curses all who assert "that 
the eucharist is not to be honored with extraordinary festive cele- 
bration, nor solemnly carried about in processions, according to 
the laudable and universal rites and customs of holy church, nor 
publicly presented to the people for their adoration." Accord- 
ingly, nothing is more common, in those countries where Popery 
prevails, than to see processions passing through the streets, 
in which the clergy, followed by a multitude, are bearing the 
host — the consecrated wafer — which the people are expected 
and required to fall on their knees and worship. Thompson,- 
in his Recollections of Mexico, says " There is scarcely an hour 
in the day when the little bells are not heard in the streets, an- 
nouncing that some priest is on his way to administer the sacra- 
ment to some one sick or dying. The priest is seated in a coach, 
drawn by two mules, followed by ten or a dozen friars, with 
lighted wax candles, chanting as they go. The coach is preceded 
by a man who rings a small bell to announce the approach of the 
host — when every one who happens to be in the street is expect- 
ed to uncover himself and kneel, and the inmates of all the houses 
on the street do the same thing. Nothing is more common than 
to hear them exclaim, whenever they hear the bell, ' Dios viene ! 

* pp. 237-238. 



226 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

Dios viene ! ' — God is coming ! God is coming ! — when, whatever 
they may be doing, they instantly fall on their knees. What I 
have described is the visit of the host to some common person. 
The procession is more or less numerous, and the person in the 
coach of more or less dignity — from an humble priest to the Arch- 
bishop of Mexico — according to the dignity and station of the 
person visited. Sometimes the procession is accompanied by a 
large band of music. The visit of the host to Senora Santa 
Anna, of which I have heretofore spoken, was attended by a pro- 
cession of twenty thousand people, headed by the Archbishop. 
Until very recently, every one was required to kneel ; and a very 
few years since an American shoemaker was murdered in his 
shop, for refusing to do it. But now they are satisfied if you 
pull off your hat, and stop until the host passes."* 

Now, go to the New Testament, and read all that is there re- 
corded concerning the eucharist, and see whether you can find 
one word from which it can be inferred that the Apostles wor- 
shipped the consecrated bread and wine, or required others to do 
so. Did they ever carry it about to the sick and dying ? Did 
they ever carry it on a holy day in procession, and call upon those 
they passed to kneel ? I will not ask whether they ever had a 
man murdered for refusing to worship the host. Why do we 
find among^ primitive Christians nothing of all this, which is 
now so prominent in the church of Rome ? The only satisfactory 
answer is — because primitive Christians knew nothing of the doc- 
trine of transubsiantiation. Rome has changed and corrupted the 
doctrine of God's w^ord, and then changed the worship to suit it. 
And her persecuting spirit, which shows itself in seeking to 
kill those who are too conscientious to yield to her idolatry, is a fur- 
ther evidence that she has corrupted the ordinance. I say, too 
conscientious to yield to her idolatry ; for the worship of the conse- 
crated wafer and wine is the grossest idolatry. It is giving to a 
lifeless piece of bread, or a cup of wine, the honor and worship due 
only to God. If this is not idolatry, what is 1 

VI. The doctrine of the mass, which is founded on that of tran* 

* Ch. X, p. 102. 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS ABSURD. 227 

substantiation, affords further conclusive evidence that it is false. 
It is not more true, that he who tells one falsehood, must tell sev- 
eral more in order to conceal it, than that he who adopts one 
serious error in religion, will feel himself constrained to avoid 
palpable inconsistency by adopting others. 

The Lord's Supper, we are told by the Roman clergy, was 
instituted, not only as a sacrament^ but also as a sacrifice to be 
offered up to God. When received as a sacrament it is " the celes- 
tial food of the soul ; " and, when offered as an oblation, it is a real 
propitiatory sacrifice for the living, and the dead in purgatory. So 
they inform us. "Whoever," says the Council of Trent, '^ shall 
affirm, that a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God in the 
mass ; or that the offering is nothing else than giving Christ to 
us to eat : let him be accursed." Again — " Whoever shall affirm, 
that by these words, ^ Do this for a commemoration of me,' Christ 
did not appoint his Apostles priests, or did not ordain that they 
and other priests should offer his body and blood : let him be 
accursed." Once more — " Whoever shall affirm, that the sacri* 
fice of the mass is only a service of praise and thanksgiving, or 
a bare commemoration of the sacrifice made on the cross, and not 
a propitiatory offering ; or that it only benefits him who receives it, 
and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, pun- 
ishments, satisfactions^ and other necessities : let hmi be accursed."* 

The falsity of the doctrine of the mass is evident from several 
considerations which I will now present. 

1. It is declared to be the same sacrifice which was offered on 
the cross, which is false and absurd. The victim^ we are told, is 
the same. That is, the consecrated wafer is Jesus Christ ! The 
monstrous absurdity of this doctrine I have already exposed. 
But if Christ be the victim^ who is the jpriest ? The officiating 
clergymen, we are told, " consecrate the holy mysteries not in their 
own, but in the person of Christ. This the words of consecration 
declare : the priest does not say, ^ This is the body of Christ^ but 
* This is my body ; and thus invested with the character of Christ, 
he changes the substance of the bread and wine into the substance 

* De Sacrificio Missa, Chap, ix. 



228 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

of his real body and blood."* The wafer is Jesus Christ ; the 
priest is virtually Jesus Christ ; and, therefore, the victim and the 
priest are Jesus Christ ! Such is the logic by which the Roman 
clergy prove the sacrifice of the mass to be the same as that offered 
on the cross. Does it require refutation ? Is not the simple state- 
ment of the doctrine the most complete exposure of it ? 

But does Jesus Christ really shed his blood and endure suffering 
in the mass? This is not pretended. The Council of Trent 
teaches, that in the mass Christ is offered without blood (incruente 
immolatur).t The Catechism of Trent speaks of Christ on the 
cross and Christ in the mass, as " the bloody and unbloody victim."| 
And Bishop Milner says, the sacrifice on the cross is the same 
with that in the mass — " in the one there being a real, and in the 
other a mystical effusion of the victim's blood." Again, he asserts, 
" that a mystical immolation of him takes place in the holy 
mass." II It is easy to conceal a difficulty or an absurdity under 
unmeaning phraseology. What does the Bishop mean by a 
" mystical effusion " of Christ's blood ? What idea can be attached 
to the phrase — ^^ mystical immolationV^ Does Christ in the mass 
endure mystical sufferings^ But Milner tells us, that on the 
cross there was " a real" effusion of blood, and in the mass there 
is ^- a mysticaV^ effusion. He places the words real and mystical 
in contrast. Since, then, a mystical effusion is the opposite of a 
real effusion^ ^nd since a mystical immolation is the opposite of a 
realimmolation; we are obliged to conclude, that in the mass 
there is no real effusion of blood and no real immolation, and, 
consequently, no real sacrifice of any kind — that there is nothing 
real in the whole thing — that it is a nonentity — a figment of the 
disordered brain, or a cunning device to delude the ignorant and 
superstitious, and get their money. Unless it be true, that men 
are chargeable with committing mystical sins, there can be no 
efficacy in a mystical immolation. 

But it was absolutely necessary that, by phraseology significant 
or unmeaning, the clergy should make the sacrifice of the mass 
identical with that offered on the cross ; for the Scriptures teach, 
* Cat. of Trent, p. 1 75. f De SaCri , cap. ii. t p. 175. || End of Con., Let. xl. 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS ABSURD. 229 

in language too clear to be misunderstood, that Christ " was once 
offered to bear the sins of many;" and that '^by one offering he 
hath perfected forever them that are sanctified."* It devolved 
upon them, therefore, not only to prove that the consecrated wafer 
is Jesus Christ, "body, blood, soul, and divinity," but that a 
bloody sacrifice is the same as an unbloody sacrifice, that the 
officiating priest is virtually Christ, and that a sacrifice, the whole 
efficacy of which consisted in the sufferings endured, is the same 
as a sacrifice in which there is no suffering at all ! But what is 
there too absurd for designing men to invent, or for superstition to 
believe ? 

2. The purposes for which the mass is said to be offered, prove 
it unscriptural and false. They are the following : 

1st. As "a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving."! Was the 
sacrifice of Christ on the cross one of praise and thanksgiving % 
Where are we so taught? His groans, and tears, and blood, were 
a sacrifice strictly propitiatory for sin. It was not a sacrifice of 
praise. Now if, as the Roman clergy aver, the mass is identical 
with the sacrifice on the cross, how can it be offered for a pur- 
pose so widely different ? 

2d. The mass, we are told, is offered " as a daily remembrance 
of the passion of Christ?":}: The Council of Trent teach, that 
our Saviour instituted the mass, when he said to his Apostles, 
" Do this for a commemoration of me."§ The mass, be it remem- 
bered, is precisely identical with the sacrifice on the cross ; and 
yet we are gravely told it is a remembrance, a commemoration of 
it ! That is, this sacrifice is a commemoration of itself! Verily 
the Roman clergy seem to have gone on a voyage in quest of the 
most remarkable absurdities ! We can easily see why Protestants 
eat the bread and drink the wine of the Supper in remembrance 
of Christ ; but that Christ should be sacrificed in commemoration 
of his being sacrificed, that a sacrifice should be the commemora- 
tion of itself, is an absurdity too glaring, one would think, to be 
received by even the most ignorant. 

* Heb. ix, 28 and x, 14. t Catechism of Trent, p. 175. % True Piety, p. 81. 
k De Sac. Miss., cap i. 



230 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

3d. The mass, we are told, is offered in honor of the saints^ in 
order to secure their intercession for believers on earth ! The 
Council of Trent says — " Although the Church is accustomed to 
celebrate, sometimes, certain masses in honor and memory of the 
saints, nevertheless, it teaches that the sacrifice is not offered to 
them, but to God only, who has crowned them with glory ; 
whence the priest does not say, I offer sacrifice to thee, Peter, or 
Paul, but giving thinks to God for their victories, he implores 
their patronage, that they whom we commemorate on earth may 
vouchsafe to intercede for us in heaven."* Christ sacrificed in 
honor of the saints ! Who are the saints? Creatures, once pol- 
luted by sin, and children of the devil, saved by the amazing grace 
of God, through the sufferings of Christ. And these sinners 
saved by grace are now to be honored by the sacrifice of the Son 
of God ! ! ! Truly the fearful impiety of Rome exceeds anything 
recorded in the history of this proud and presumptuous world ! 
Under the old dispensation we find not an instance in which even 
an animal was offered in honor of any creature on earth or in 
heaven ; but the Roman clergy honor the saints by the sacrifice 
of their Lord ! — they sacrifice the Creator to honor the creature ! 
And by what authority is such a sacrifice offered ? Was the 
sacrifice on the cross offered in honor of the saints ? This even 
Rome does not pretend to affirm. Then since it is pretended that 
the mass is identical with that, how happens it to be applied to 
purposes so infinitely different ? But the clergy thus honor the 
saints, they say, in order to secure their intercession. They first, 
in the face of the Word of God, put the saints instead of Christ as 
intercessors, and then, to induce them to do the work of interces- 
sors, they sacrifice the Saviour to do them honor ! So it would 
seem the saints in heaven have not sufficient benevolence to inter- 
cede for their brethren on earth, unless they can be honored by 
the sacrifice of Jesus their Lord ! The church of Rome attributes 
to saints in heaven more ungodly pride and ambition, than has 
characterized the most depraved men on earth. Hence she cajoles 
and flatters them with blasphemous worship, to induce them 

* De. Sac. Miss., cap iii. 



THE PRIESTHOOD UNSCRIPTURAL. 231 

to appear as advocates for her children, before the throne of God. 
But to offer the Son of God in sacrifice to honor sinners saved by- 
sovereign grace, argues a blindness and infatuation unequalled in 
the history of human pride and superstition. 

4th. The mass, we are told, is truly propitiatory, and by it 
^' God is appeased and rendered propitious."* This, however, 
can be proved only by making it identical with the sufferings of 
Christ on the cross, the absurdity of which has already been 
exposed. 

3. But another fact which is fatal to the doctrine of the mass, is 
—that there are no priests in the Christian church ; and there- 
fore^ there can be no sacrifice. This consequence the bishops 
of Trent saw ; and therefore they asserted that our Saviour ap- 
pointed the Apostles "priests of the New Testament."! This, 
however, is not true. In the New Testament the church of God 
is called " a royal priesthood," because every true Christian is to 
" offer up spiritual sacrifices — the sacrifices of praise and thanks- 
giving — acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.":^ The minis- 
ters of Christ are called apostles, bishops, presbyters, &c., but in 
not one instance are they called priests. I am aware that in the 
Doway Bible we find priests ; but the translation is most grossly 
incorrect. Where the word presbuteros occurs in the gospels, and 
with reference to Jewish officers, the translators render it ancient; 
but when the same word is used with reference to the ministers 
of Christ, they translate it priest. For example, Math, xv, 2, is 
thus translated : " Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition 
of the ancients {presbuteron) ? " Acts xiv, 23, is translated thus : 
"And when they had ordained for them priests [presbuterous) in 
every church," &;c. Now I assert, without fear of successful 
contradiction, that the word presbuteros never signifies a priest 
who ministers at the altar. Literally it signifies an old man. It 
was originally used to designate the rulers of the Jews (Exod. 
iii, 16) ; and in the Jewish Sanhedrim the priests and presbyters, 
or elders, filled different offices. Math, xvi, 21. The word con- 

* Cat. of Trent, p. 175. f De Sacrificio Mis. Cap. 1. 

X Comp. 1 Pet. ii, 5, 9, and Heb. xiii, 15. 



232 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

stantly used, both in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the 
Old Testament) and in the New Testament, to signify a priest, 
is chiereus, and archiereus a high-priest. But it is a fact, that 
these words are never used in the New Testament to designate the 
ministers of the gospel. The grossly incorrect translation of the 
Doway Bible, for which not one particle of authority can be found, 
was made to suit the doctrine of the mass. Since, therefore, 
there are no priests in the Christian church, there can be no sac- 
rifice ; and consequently the doctrine of the mass is proved false, 

4. ^5 there are no priests in the Christian church; so there is 
no ALTAR, and.^ therefore no sacrifice. True, Paul says, referring 
to the Jewish sacrifices, " We have an altar, whereof they have 
no right to eat which serve the tabernacle ; but he immediately 
explains his meaning by saying — " Wherefore Jesus also, that he 
might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without 
the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him," &c. This was 
not the " unbloody sacrifice," the "mystical immolation." True, 
the Apostle exhorts Christians to offer sacrifice ; but he leaves not 
his meaning doubtful — " By him therefore let us offer the sacri- 
fice of praisie to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giv- 
ing thanks to his name. But to do good and to communicate 
forget not ; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased."* Such 
are the sacrifices, and the only sacrifices, the church of Christ is 
required to offer. 

The Council of Trent found an altar in 1 Cor. x, 21. "Ye 
cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and the table of devils." 
By the table of devils they understood the altar on which the 
heathen sacrifices were offered, and by the table of the Lord, the 
altar for the mass. But the word trapeza, which in the Latin 
Vulgate is rendered meiisa^ never signifies an altar for sacrifice. 
The Greek word constantly used to signify an altar^ is thusiaste- 
rion. But both the Greek word trapeza, and the Latin word 
mensa^ signify uniformly a table on which food is placed for eat- 
ing, or a table for other purposes, as the tables of the money- 
changers in the temple, t And this meaning accords precisely 

* Heb. xiii, 10-15. f Math, xxi, 12. 



CHRIST THE ONLY TRUE SACRIFICE. 283 

with the subject of the Apostle's remarks. He is giving direc- 
tions concerning the propriety of Christians attending those feasts 
in which things offered to idols were eaten. " Whatsoever is sold 
in the shambles, that eat," &c. They might eat that which had 
been offered in sacrifice to idols, and afterwards sold in market ; 
but they must not go to an idolatrous feast. In the Christian 
church we .find neither priest nor altar ^ and consequently no such 
sacrifice as that of the mass. 

5. Finally^ tee do not read in the Scriptures of any other 
SACRIFICE, than that which was offered on the cross. The Council 
of Trent, and Roman writers generally, refer with apparent con- 
fidence to Malachi i, 11 " For from the rising of the sun even to 
the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the 
Gentiles ; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my 
name, and a pure offering." Here, indeed, we find a pure offering 
spoken of: but where is the evidence that it has any reference to 
the mass. It is a mere assumption without the slightest proof. 
The meaning of this prophetic language is given by Paul in the 
passage already quoted — "By him therefore let us offer the sacri- 
fice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips ;" — and by 
Peter — " a holy priesthood [the church] to offer up spiritual sacri- 
fices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." What incense has so 
sweet an odor to God, as the devotion of the heart ? — what sac- 
rifice purer and more acceptable, than the praises of a penitent, 
grateful soul % Wherever on earth there is a faithful child of 
God, this pure offering is daily made. The " golden vials full of 
odors," which John saw in the hands of the elders, "are the 
prayers of saints."* These are real^ not mystical sacrifices. 
These are sacrifices with which God is well pleased. 

The doctrmes of transubstantiation and the mass, like most of 
the prominent doctrines of Rome, give to the clergy immense 
power and wealth. None but they can convert the bread into 
Christ Jesus ; none but they can administer it as a sacrament ; 
none others can offer the sacrifice of the mass for the living and 
the dead. Those who dread the fires of purgatory, and those 

in* 

^^ *Rev.v, 8. 



234 ROMANISxM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

who suppose that they have friends writhing in the flames of that 
middle state, have the strongest motives to keep in favor with 
the clergy, to leave them a legacy to pray them out of purgatory, 
when they die, and to pay them well to sing mass fqr their de- 
parted friends. But this feature of the subject was presented in 
the lectures on penance and purgatory; and I need not here re- 
peat the exposure of the tyranny and oppression exercised by the 
clergy in connection with this doctrine, and by its means. 

The worst features of it are its gross impiety and the fatal de- 
ception practiced upon the superstitious multitude, who, turned 
from the real sacrifice of Calvary, fondly dream that their sins 
are pardoned, because a priest professes to offer for them a piece 
of bread ! " God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of 
Christ Jesus my Lord." 

Let us turn from the multiplied errors and endless jargon of 
Rome to the simple, significant, sublime ordinance of the Supper, 
as instituted by Jesus Christ ; and whilst, in the appointed use of 
the bread and wine, we affectionately remember his dying love, 
and show forth his death to others, let us look beyond the mere 
emblems, and, assisted by our senses, rest by faith on the glorious 
sacrifice of Calvary. There flows blood which cleanseth from 
all sin. There is an offering by which he hath perfected for- 
ever them that are sanctified. 



GOD ONLY TO BE WORSHIPPED. 235 



LECTURE IX. 

Kev. xxii, 9 : •* Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not : for I am thy fel- 
low servant, and of thy brethren the Prophets, and of them which keep 
the sayings of this book: worship God." 

Whether the person who addressed the Apostle, and imparted 
to him the wonderful revelations here recorded, was one of that 
order of holy beings commonly called angels^ or was one of the 
old Prophets, who, though glorified in heaven, was still employed 
in serving the church on earth, it is not important now to deter- 
mine. We know that the angels "are ministering spirits, sent 
forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation;" 
and it is not impossible that glorified saints, who are "as the 
angels," may be similarly employed. The principle, however, 
is the same, so far as the present discussion is concerned. 
John, overpowered by the glory of the celestial messenger, and 
by the wonderful things by him revealed, fell down once and 
again to worship him. The angel positively forbade him to do so, 
because he was a fellow-creature and a fellow-servant of John, 
and directed him to worship God. " See thou do it not : for I am 
thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the Prophets, and of them 
which keep the sayings of this book : woeship God." 

The doctrine clearly taught in this portion of Scripture, is — 
that God is the only object of religious worship. Creatures may 
be loved and respected according to their intelligence and their 
holiness ; but religious worship must not be ofiered to any crea- 
ture, however exalted. There is a broad distinction between that 
respect, love, and even reverence, which may be properly felt and 
expressed towards creatures, and those feelings and acts which 
constitute religious worship. The latter necessarily involve the 
idea of accountability and obligation to the being worshipped. 



236 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

and, therefore, put him in the place of God. It is the ascription 
of divine honor to the object of worship. 

In the Doway Bible we find the following note on the corres- 
ponding passage (ch. xix, 10): " St. Augustine is of opinion that 
this angel appeared in so glorious a manner that St. John took 
him to be God ; and therefore would have given him divine 
honor, had not the angel stopped him, by telling him he was his 
fellow-servant. St. Gregory rather thinks that the veneration 
offered by St. John, was not divine honor, or indeed any other 
than what might lawfully be given ; but was nevertheless refused 
by the angel, in consideration of the dignity to which our human 
nature had been raised, by the incarnation of the Son of God ; 
and the dignity of St. John, an Apostle, Prophet, and Martyr." 
Here we cannot but remark — 1st. How worthless is that " unan- 
imous consent of the Fathers " on which Rome constrains her 
children to rest their faith. We have here two of the most pro- 
minent of them differing v/idely in the interpretation of a portion 
of Scripture, on the proper understanding of which depends one 
of the most important doctrines of the church. 2d. If Augus- 
tine expressed the opinion attributed to him, of which we need not 
now inquire, he did so without the slightest evidence ; for John 
drops not the most distant intimation that he supposed the angel 
to be God himself On the contrary, he says he was '^ one of the 
seven angels " whom he had seen in a preceding part of the vision 
(ch. XV, 1). Nor is there more evidence to support the opinion 
said to have been expressed by Gregory ; for John does not inti- 
mate that the worship was refused for any of the reasons men- 
tioned, but simply because he was a creature ; and therefore the 
command given to John is — "worship God" — ^none but God. 

It is implied, of course, that God is to be worshipped as a Spi- 
rit, and, therefore, not by means of pictures or visible represen- 
tations of any kind. 

I will now state the doctrine of Rome on the points involved 
in this discussion, and then compare it with the Word of God. 
The Council of Trent commanded all bishops and others who 
have the care and charge of teaching, " that according to the 



WORSHIP OF IMAGES TAUGHT. 237 

practice of the Catholic and Apostolic church, &c. — they labor 
with diligent assiduity to instruct the faithful concerning the in- 
vocation and intercession of the saints, the honor due to relics, 
and the lawful use of images ; teaching them that the saints, who 
reign together-with Christ, offer their prayers to God for mca — 
that it is a good and useful thing suppliantly to invoke them, hwk 
to flee to their prayers, help and assistance, because of the bene- 
fits bestowed by God through his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who* 
is our only Redeemer and Saviour; and that those are men of 
impious sentiments v/ho deny that the saints, who enjoy eternal 
happiness in heaven, are to be invoked — or who affirm that they 
do not pray for men, or that to beseech them to pray for us is 
idolatry, or that it is contrary to the Word of God, or opposed to 
the honor of Jesus Christ, the one Mediator between God and 
men, or that it is foolish to supplicate, verbally or mentally, those 
who reign in heaven." 

The same Council teaches, and requires the bishops to teach, 
concerning relics^ " that the holy bodies of the holy martyrs and 
others living with Christ, whose bodies were living members of 
Christ, and temples of the Holy Spirit, (fee, are to be venerated 
by the faithful, since by them God bestows many benefits on 
men. So that they are to be wholly condemned, as the church has 
long before condemned them, and now repeats the sentence, who 
affirm that veneration and honor are not due to the relics of the 
saints, or that it is a useless thing that the faithful should honor 
these and other sacred monuments, and that the memorials of the 
saints are in vain frequented to obtain their help and assistance." 

Concerning images and pictures, the Council teaches, " that 
the images of Christ, of the Virgin, Mother of God, and other 
saints, are to be had and retained, especially in churches, and due 
honor and veneration rendered to them. Not that it is believed 
that any divinity or power resides in them, on account of which 
they are to be worshipped, or that any benefit is to be sought 
from them, or any confidence placed in images, as was formerly 
by the Gentiles, who fixed their hopes in idols. But the honor 
with which they are to be regarded is referred to those who are 



238 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

represented by them ; so that we adore Christ and venerate the 
saintSj whose likenesses these images bear, when we kiss them, 
and uncover our heads in their presence, and prostrate ourselves. 
Let the bishops teach further, that by the records of the mysteries 
of our redemption, expressed in pictures and other similitudes, 
men are instructed and confirmed in those articles of faith which 
are especially to be remembered and cherished ; and that great 
advantages are derived from all sacred images, not only be- 
cause the people are thus reminded of the benefits and gifts 
which are bestowed on them by Christ, but also because the 
divine miracles performed by the saints and their salutary exam- 
ples are thus placed before the eyes of the faithful, that they 
may give thanks to God for them, order their lives and manners 
in imitation of the saints, and be excited to adore and love God, 
and cultivate piety. Whoever shall teach or think in opposition 
of these decrees, let him be accursed." 

Such is the faith of Rome concerning the worship of saints 
and angels, the veneration of relics, and the use of images and 
pictures. Let us test its truth by an appeal to the Scriptures of 
Truth. 

1. That God is to be worshipped, all acknowledge. The faith 
of Protestants, which requires all to w^orship Him, is admitted to 
be true. The command — " Thou shalt have no other gods before 
me" — requires all to worship and serve Jehovah, and forbids the 
worship of any other being. On this point we shall have some- 
thing more to say presently. 

2. It is equally clear, though Romanists deny it, that God for- 
bids the use of images or pictures in his worship. The second 
commandment of the Decalogue leaves no room for doubt on this 
point : " Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or any 
likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth 
beneath, or that is in the water under the earth : thou shalt not 
bow down thyself to them, nor serve them : for I, the Lord thy 
God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon 
the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that 
hate me ; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love 



1 



WORSHIP OF IMAGES TAUGHT. 239 

me, and keep my commandments." The first commandment 
forbids the worship of any being but the true God ; and the 
second, in language too plain to be misunderstood, and accom- 
panied by warnings the most solemn, forbids the worship of the 
true God by means of images or ^pictures of any kind. In other 
words, the first commandment forbids polytheism — the worship of 
more than the true God ; and the second forbids idolatry — the 
worship of God by the use of any visible representation. 

The reason of this solemn prohibition is given in the precept, 
viz : God is jealous of his honor. If an image or picture could 
be of any advantage in the worship of God, it must be because 
by means of it a more correct view of his character is presented 
to the mind. But when Romanists paint God the Father as an 
old man^ will any one pretend, that by such a picture a more 
correct and exalted view of his character is presented to the mind 
of the worshipper % Will the clergy tell us, that with the sublime 
and awful view of the divine character exhibited by the Scriptures 
before our mind, our conceptions will become still more spiritual 
and sublime by having before the eye the picture of an old man ? 

The Do way Catechism has the following question and answer : 
" Gl. How do you prove it lawful to paint God the Father like 
an old man, seeing he is a pure spirit, and hath no body ? A. 
Because he appeared to the prophet Daniel in the shape of an 
old man, Daniel vii, but this is to be understood, that the pictures 
we make, are not the proper images of God the Father, but that 
shape wherein he appeared to DanieV^* It is not true, that God 
the Father appeared to Daniel in the form of an old man — the 
very image of infirmity. Daniel says — " I beheld till the thrones 
were cast down, and the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment 
was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool : his 
throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. 
A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him : thousand 
thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thou- 
sand stood before him : the judgment was set, and the books were 
opened." What do we see here % Instead of an old man, trem- 

*p.53. 



240 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

bling over the grave, we have a vision of the King of kings in 
his glorious majesty, eternity the measure of his existence, and 
universal dominion his undisputed right ! Is there, or has there 
been on earth, a painter who could even approximate to a drawing 
of this awful vision ? And this is the only authority the Papists 
can plead for flying in the face of the divine prohibition, and 
painting God as an old man ! 

But the authors of the Catechism tell us, that the pictures they 
make, are not the proper images of God the Father. No-— they 
are infinitely unlike him, and infinitely below him. How, then, 
can such pictures elevate our views of him, or aid us in offering 
to him spiritual worship ? Is not the tendency necessarily just 
the opposite 1 In the name of common sense, why make a picture 
to represent an object, which picture you feel constrained to tell 
all who look upon it, is in no respect like the object it is designed to 
represent, but, compared with it, is most uncomely and degrading? 

The second precept of the Decalogue has long been a difficul- 
ty in the way of Papists. Instead of " graven image," the Doway 
Bible has "graven thing;" and by the precept the Roman clergy 
tell us, they understand " that we must not make idols or images, 
nor any graven thing whatsoever, to adore it as a God, or with 
God's honor."* But this interpretation is flatly contradicted by 
that remarkable portion of Scripture, Deut. iv, 15-19. " Take ye 
therefore good heed unto yourselves ; for ye saw no manner of 
similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out 
of the midst of the fire; lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you 
a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male 
or female ; the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the like- 
ness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air ; the likeness of any- 
thing that creepeth," &c. What reason is here assigned for for- 
bidding the making, for religious use, of any graven image, the 
likeness of male or female? The reason is, that they saw no 
manner of similitude when God appeared to them on the mount. 
God is a Spirit infinitely unlike, and infinitely above everything 
on earth and in heaven ; therefore make no attempt to form a 
* Doway Cat., p. 5i, 



WORSHIP OF IMAGES UNSCRIPTURAL. 241 

picture or image of him. It is one of the severe charges prefer- 
ed by Paul against the Pagans, who are represented as abandon- 
ed of God, that " they changed the glory of the uncorruptible 
God, into an image made like to corruptible rmcinr^ This charge 
lies in an aggravated form against Rome, who has made pictures 
representing God as an old man ! She has done more ; she has 
made pictures for the use of her children, representing the Holy 
Trinity ! I have in my possession one of these pictures, in which 
the Father is represented as an old man, the Son as crucified on 
his bosom, and the Holy Spirit as a dove ! Well may we be 
shocked at such impiety, when even the most awful mystery con- 
nected with the being of Jehovah is profanely represented by 
Rome in pictures, to aid the devotions of her children ! 

I have said the second precept of the Decalogue has long giv- 
en trouble to the Roman clergy ; for its language is as clear a 
condemnation of their faith and practice, as language can be. 
True, they tell us they do not worship the pictures or images 
themselves, but God or the saints intended to be represented by 
them ; but every intelligent Pagan would say the same concern- 
ing the images of his gods. The word idolatry^ is derived from 
the Greek word eido^ to see, and it means the worship of God or 
of gods, by visible representations. Romanists are, therefore, 
idolaters. In their trouble to escape the force of this second 
commandment, the clergy have united the first and second in 
one, and divided the tenth into two — -thus making two distinct 
precepts prohibiting the one sin of covetousness ! Having made 
this arbitrary and unscriptural division, they not unfrequently 
leave out the second precept from their catechisms. This is 
acknowledged and justified by the Doway Catechism : " Q. Why 
are not these words expressed at length in many of our shorter 
catechisms ? A. Because they are sufficiently included in the 
preceding words, ' Thou shalt not have strange (or other) gods 
before me.' CI. How declare you that ? A. Because if we must 
have no other but the only true God, who created heaven and 
earth, then it is clear to the reason of every child, that we must not 

11 * Rom. V 2.3. 



242 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

have many godS; or any graven things for gods, or adore any 
other things for gods."* Here we have evidence conclusive that 
the interpretation of the second precept, given by the Roman 
clergy, is false ; for they make it mean precisely the same thing 
as the first, and then omit it in their catechisms, because the 
meaning of the first is plain even to the mind of a child, and 
therefore what we call the second, is entirely superfluous ! If the 
doctrine of Protestants is true, the second commandment, so far 
from being superfluous, is of unspeakable importance. The first 
points out the object of religious worship — God Almighty ; the 
second determines the manner in which he is to be worshipped — 
he is a Spirit, and must be worshipped, not by means of pictures 
and images, but in spirit and in truth. Which interpretation is 
true, that which makes a very prominent part of God's law su- 
perfluous, and induces men to mutilate it in their Catechisms ; 
or that which retains it all, and makes all of it equally significant 
and important ? 

This argument becomes perfectly conclusive, in view of the 
fact that in the temple at Jerusalem there was neither image nor 
picture representing God. And never, so far as we can ascertain, 
did the Jews attempt to make an}^hing of the kind. Why did 
they not? If such things are an aid to devotion, did they not need 
them quite as much as the Christians? The uniform practice of 
inspired men, under the Old Dispensation, is proof conclusive that 
they understood the Old Testament Scriptures just as Protestants 
understand them, as forbidding the making of any image or pic- 
ture to represent the Great God. And is there in the New Tes- 
tament anything favorable to the practice of Rome? This is not 
pretended. The truth is clear, that the church of Rome, in open 
violation of the plainest precepts of the Word of God, has paganized 
Christianity, "and changed the glory of the incorruptible God 
into an image made like to corruptible man." She has become 
grossly idolatrous. 

There might appear to be somiething more to justify the use 
of pictures and images of Christ, since he appeared on earth in 

*p.51. 



WORSHIP OF IMAGES IDOLATRY. 243 

human nature. But, in the first place, there is nothing in the 
Scriptures to countenance the practice. And besides, no painter 
or sculptor on earth ever did, or ever will make a picture or im- 
age of Christ that is not unspeakably below the reality, and that 
does not tend to degrade, instead of elevating our views of him. 
We have never seen a human countenance which was not marred 
by the depravity of our fallen nature. The painter or sculptor 
himself is under the blinding and degrading influence of sin. It 
is not to be supposed, therefore, that he could succeed in any- 
thing like a just representation of the countenances of Adam and 
Eve before the fall. How far short, then, must such men come 
of drawing the likeness of him. who is infinitely more than man, 
through whose countenance, itself expressing the perfection of 
holiness, shone the glories of Divinity ! A Roman Catholic en- 
ters a church, and falls on his knees before a picture representing 
Christ on the cross. Is there one feature of the face correctly 
drawn ? Probably not one. It bears no resemblance to Christ 
more than the picture of any other man. It falls far, very far, 
beneath the conceptions we have formed of him by reading the 
Gospels? Can such a thing aid our devotions? Why have we 
in the New Testament no description of his personal appearance ? 
He knew what was in man, and he knew that such a description, 
without aiding the faith of his people, might lead to the corrup- 
tion of that spiritual worship^ which he came to establish. 

The Doway Catechism proves the lawfulness of the use of 
images, " because we read in Baroniusy that famous church his- 
torian, in the year of Christ, 31, that Christ himself sent his own 
image to King Abdagar, and made it also by a miracle on the 
handkerchief of St. Veroiiica^ and on his own shroud." * Baro- 
nius lived in the 17th century. What evidence is there that the 
stories he tells of what happened so many centuries before he 
lived, are true ? In the authentic and inspired accounts of the 
life and works of our Saviour, we not only do not find these 
stories recorded, but we find nothing analogous to them — nothing 
from which we can infer the probability of such things. We 

* p. 52. 



244 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

therefore reject them as, like a multitude of other traditions of 
Rome, utterly false. 

Another proof adduced of the lawfulness of the use of images, 
is the lifting up the brazen serpent in the Jewish camp in the 
wilderness^ " Q. What other proof have you for the lawful use 
of images ? A. First, out of John iii, 14, where Christ approves 
the making and exalting the brazen serpent, by which the Israel- 
ites were healed in th« desert, and owns it to be an image or 
figure of himself, exalted on the cross." * That Moses did right 
in raising the brazen serpent in the camp, no one doubts, since he 
did so in obedience to the command of God. But that the ser- 
pent was an image of Christ, no one would ever dream, who 
was not sorely pressed for arguments to sustain the unscriptural 
faith of Rome; if it is to be so considered, then the Roman 
clergy should have a serpent, instead of a man, in their churches ! 

But the authors of the Catechism, whilst referring to the bra- 
zen serpent, in support of their faith, forgot one important fact, 
viz : that it led the Jews into idolatry, and was, on that account, 
broken in pieces by king Hezekiah. " He removed the high 
places, and broke the images, and cut down the groves, and broke 
in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made ; for unto those 
days the children of Israel did burn incense to it ; and he called 
it Nehushtan," that is, a piece of brass, t The translators of 
the Doway Bible, in a note on this passage, say : '' So he called 
it in contempt, because they had made an idol of it." Now, 
if such is the tendency of human nature to idolatry, that the Jews 
were led into the commission of that sin, by a piece of brass, in 
the shape of a serpent, which was never intended to be used in 
religious worship, who does not see how much greater the danger 
of idolatry, when the images of Christ and the saints are sus- 
pended in the churches, and the people are taught to kneel and 
pray before them ? It is in vain that the Roman clergy talk of 
" an inferior or relative honor." The language is perfectly in- 
definite ; and the result will be just as in the case of the brazen 
serpent. And if, to prevent idolatry, it was necessary that Heze- 

* Dow. Cat p, 52. t 2 Kings, xviii, 4. 



THE WORSHIP OF SAINTS UNLAWFUL, 245 

kiah should break in pieces the brazen serpent, is it not evident 
that the Roman clergy are most inexcusable for placing in the 
churches pictures and images far more likely to lead to that sin? 
Rome has borrowed much from the types and shadows of the 
Jewish dispensation, but much more from the darkness of Pa- 
ganism. 

I have said that, according to the Scriptures, God is the only object 
of religious worship, and consequently the worship and invocation . 
of saints and angels are unscriptural and sinful. Angels, it is true, 
are ministering spirits, sent forth to minister to the heirs of salva- 
tion ; and possibly glorified saints may be similarly employed ; 
but it does not follow that it is right to worship them, or to in- 
voke their intercession on our behalf. The Protestant doctrine, 
that God is the only object of religious worship, is fully estab- 
lished by the following incontrovertible facts, viz. : 

1, There is, in the Scriptures, no command and no permission 
granted, to worship or pray to saints and angels. God has 
taught us that he is a jealous God; that he will not give his glory 
to another. It is most evident, therefore, that men have no right 
to offer religious worship to any being in the universe, without a 
command or express permission to do so ; and that they who, un- 
authorized by him, teach men to worship any other being, do con- 
tract a fearful amount of guilt. Those who defend the doctrine 
in question, do not pretend to find in the Scriptures any precept 
or permission to support it. 

2. It is a fact that the Scriptures afford no example in favor 
of the doctrine of the worship of saints and angels. The inspired 
writers gave many directions concerning religious worship and 
prayer ; but they never directed men to worship and invoke by 
prayer any being but God. They have left on record many 
prayers, both in the Old and New Testaments, but not one 
prayer, or one petition, to any saint or angel. Search the Bible 
through — read every prayer and every petition in its sacred pages 
— and you will look in vain for anything like the saint-worship 
of Rome. This fact cannot be successfully denied. Roman 
writers cannot find any such prayers. How shall w^e account for 



246 ROIMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

this fact ? Did the inspired writers believe with* the Council of 
Trent, " that the saints, who reign together with Christ, offer their 
prayers to God for men — that it is a good and useful thing sup- 
pliantly to invoke them, and to flee to their prayers for help and 
assistance ?" If they did, why did they never happen, in all 
their directions and exhortations concerning the duty of prayer, to 
intimate anything of the kind ? Did they ever oflfer prayers to 
saints and angels ? Why, then, do we find in the Bible, where 
so many prayers are recorded, no trace of such a practice ? The 
Saviour taught his disciples to pray ; and the Lord's prayer is left 
on record, as a model for his church in all succeeding ages. How 
happens it, that this remarkable prayer contains not one petition 
to any being but God ? If it were true, that it is either a duty or 
a privilege to pray to saints and angels, would he have given his 
disciples no intimation of the kind ? When the Romish clergy 
teach their followers to pray, do they act thus ? Take up one 
of their prayer books, and you will soon be convinced that they 
regard prayers to saints as among the most important parts of re- 
ligious worship. They have abundantly supplied, out of their 
own fruitful imaginations, that, in regard to which, if Popery be 
true, the inspired writers, and Jesus Christ himself, were sadly 
deficient ! The Catechism of the Council of Trent says, " When 
kneeling before the image of a saint, we repeat the Lord's prayer, 
we are also to recollect that we beg of the saint to pray with us, 
and to obtain for us those favors which we ask of God in the pe- 
titions of the Lord's prayer ; in fine, that he become an inter- 
preter and intercessor with God."* Our Lord, in teaching his 
disciples to pray, omits, entirely, petitions to saints. The Roman 
clergy, in their fancied wisdom, supply the defect, informing their 
followers that they are, in repeating this prayer before the image 
of a saint, to understand themselves as praying also to the saint ! 
Bishop Milner says, " That it is lawful and profitable to in- 
voke the prayers of the angels, is plain from Jacob's asking and 
obtaining the angel's blessing, with whom he had mystically 
wrestled, Gen. xxxii, 26, and from his invoking his own angel to 

* p. 327. 



THE WORSHIP OF SAINTS UNLAWFUL. 247 

bless Joseph's sons, Gen. xlviii. 16." * But the angel with whom 
Jacob wrestled was God himself, the second person in the adora- 
ble Trinity, who appeared to him in the form of a man. There- 
fore it was that his name was changed, and he w^as called Israel — 
prince of God ; " For as a prince hast thou power with God and 
with men, and hast prevailed ;" and therefore Jacob called the 
name of the place Peniel [face of God], for he said, '' I have 
seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." This same 
angel is, by the Prophet Hosea, declared to be Jehovah: ^'By 
his strength he had power with God : yea, he had power over the 
angel, and prevailed: he wept and made supplication unto him: 
he found him in Bethel, and there he spoke with us ; even the 
Lord God of hosts; the Lord [Heb. JeiiovahI is his memorial"! 
Wonderful interpreters of Scripture are the Roman clergy, who 
refer us to a prayer offered to God, as evidence that prayers 
should be addressed to creatures! The angel whose blessing 
Jacob invoked upon the sons of Joseph, was the same with whom 
he had wrestled ; and consequently these passages afford no sup- 
port to the doctrines of Rome. 

Milner attempts to prove that saints do intercede for Christians, 
^^from the Book of Revelations, where the four-and-twenty elders 
in heaven are said to have golden vials full of odors^ which are 
the prayers of the saints." Rev. v, 8. J The passage is as follows: 
^' And when he [Christ] had taken the book, the four beasts and 
four-and-twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every 
one of them harps, and golden vials full of odors, which are the 
prayers of saints.^' Now let it be remembered that in the lan- 
guage of the Scriptures all believers on earth are saints. 1 Cor. 
i, 2 ; Acts xxvi, 10 ; Rom. i, 7. Then let it not be forgotten that 
the revelations made to John the Apostle, in these wonderful 
visions, concerned chiefly the church on earthy her trials, perse- 
cutions and triumphs. Jesus Christ, " the Lion of the tribe of 
Judah," opens the book of God's purposes concerning his church ; 
and the four-and-twenty elders, clothed in white raiment, || with 

* End of Con., Let. xxxiii. f Hosea, xii, 3-5. 

t End of Con.. Let. xxxiii. jj Rev. iv, 4. 



248 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

their vials full of odors, represent the church of Christ worship- 
ping and praising him. The prayers of the saints, therefore, are 
those offered to God by his people on earth, not the intercessions 
of those in heaven. 

But it is said Paul asked Christians to pray for him ; why, 
then, may we not ask the prayers of saints in heaven? True, 
Paul asked the prayers of believers on earth ; but, so far as the 
Scriptures inform us, he never once asked those of the saints in 
heaven, nor directed others to do so. Why did he not? He cer- 
tainly had good reasons for this omission. He did not believe 
that it is part of the work of saints and angels in heaven to pray 
for men on earth. Had his faith been identical with that of 
Rome, we should have read in his epistles how, in his afflictions 
and persecutions, he called on the Virgin Mary, the saints and 
angels for aid. But in vain do we look in his epistles or in the 
Acts of the Apostles, or in the New Testament, for anything of 
the kind. The name of Mary, which figures so prominently in 
the devotional books of Rome, is not once mentioned by the 
Apostles, after the brief historical facts connected with her are 
stated. We ask the prayers of Christians because they are di- 
rected by God to pray one for another. We do not ask the 
prayers of saints and angels in heaven, because we have no 
authority from God to do so. 

3. In the Scriptures we find no saints' days — dai/s observed 
in honor of particular saints^ when their intercession is to be 
specially sought. The adoption of one important error, as I 
have repeatedly remarked, leads naturally, if not necessarily, to 
the adoption of others. Rome makes intercessors of the saints in 
heaven, or of those she has canonized as saints ; then she makes 
prayers' to be offered, up to them, and appoints days to be religi- 
ously observed in honor of them, when their assistance is to be 
particularly invoked. In the Bible they are never mentioned as 
intercessors ; and, of course, no prayers are addressed to them, 
and no days appointed in honor of them — no St. Abraham's day, 
St Moses's day, St. David's day ; no ^'- all saints' day." The Jewish 
church had many holy days appointed by God, but not one of them 



THE WORSHIP OF SAINTS UNLAWFUL. 249 



connected with any saint. The Roman prayer-books are consist- 
ent with Roman faith and worship ; and the Scriptures are consist- 
ent with Christian faith and worship ; but the two are radically 
unlike and opposite. 

4. It is perfectly absurd for Christians in all parts of the earth 
to he offering prayers to finite beings in a distant part of the uni- 
verse^ employed with all their powers in the service and enjoyment 
of God. Let it be admitted, if you please, that saints and angels 
often visit the earth, what evidence can we have that the particu- 
lar individual to whom our prayers may be addressed is present, 
or can hear us? In a devotional book, which I have had occa- 
sion to quote more than once, as published by Bishop David, late 
of Kentucky, I find the following singular prayer : 
"^ Prayer to the monthly Patron. 

O thou blessed inhabitant of the heavenly Jerusalem, who hast 
been appointed by the divine Goodness to be my patron during 
this month, receive me under thy protection, defend me by thy 
intercession from all dangers of soul and body ; obtain that I may 
be a faithful imitator of thy virtues, and that the fire of divine love 
may be more and more kindled in my heart. 

D. Pray for us, St. N. 

R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ."* 

Now I am utterly at a loss to know how the pope and his 
clergy ascertained that the saints have monthly appointments to 
intercede for Christians on earth. That angels are ministering 
spirits to them we know ; but that they have such appointments 
as this prayer contemplates, is more than doubtful. How, then, 
can the devout Papist have any assurance that the saint is listen- 
ing to his prayers? All Papists pray constantly to Mary; and, 
of course, it often, happens that ten thousand persons, in different 
and distant parts of the earth, are addressing prayers to her at the 
same moment. Now can any man, in his sober senses, believe 
that she is present to all of them, and can hear all their petitions ? 
Is she omnipresent and omniscient ? Is she equal to God? It 
will not relieve the difficulty to say, as does Bishop JMilner, that 

* p. 391. 



250 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

God can communicate to the saints in heaven the prayers offered 
to them on earth, as he conveyed to Elisha (2 Kings vi, 9) what 
was passing in Syria. For, in the first place, God never com- 
municated to Elisha or to any other creature, what ten thousand 
persons, in different places, were saying to him at the same in- 
stant. In the second place, he has not promised to make any 
such revelation to the saints in heaven, in order that Christians 
on earth may have the benefit of their intercession. Show us the 
promise, and ive ivill believe. 

But if the Roman clergy fail to establish the doctrine of saint- 
worship by the Scriptures, they have another source of evidence, 
viz : the 7?iiracles wrought at their to77ibs. " The blind see, the 
lame walk, the parallyzed are invigorated, the dead raised to life, 
and evil demons are expelled from the bodies of men."* We ob- 
ject to this evidence, for several reasons. 1st. Except in a single 
instance, which occurred under peculiar circumstances, the Scrip- 
tures give no account of any miracle WTOUght at the tomb of a 
saint. We read of no pilgrimages to the tombs of the saints, of 
no prayers offered at such places. All these practices have sprung 
up at a later day. How shall we account for the fact, that the 
tombs of saints, so much frequented by Papists, were so much 
neglected by pious men of old, and by Apostles and primitive 
Christians? The miracles said to have been wrought at the 
tombs of saints, like the infallibility of the Roman clergy, are of 
a new kind^ and therefore of very suspicious character. 2d. The 
miracles said to have been wrought at the tombs of the saints, 
have been in Romish countries, or in distant ages ; and the wit- 
nesses by whom they are proved, are those interested in having 
them believed, or the ignorant and superstitious. In the United 
States, where, if any where on earth, miracles are needed to con- 
vert infidels and heretics, we are permitted to witness none of 
them. Those of which Ave hear are always wrought ^'in a 
corner," in some convent where it is impossible to expose an im- 
position, however gross. In view of the unscriptural character 
of those miracles and the lack of evidence to prove them genu- 
* Catechism, of Trent, p. 248. 



THE WORSHIP Of^ SAINTS UNLAWFUL. 251 

ine, the intelligent and candid will be far from regarding* them 
as sufficient to prove a doctrine and authorize a practice not found 
in the word of God. 

4. If we should even admit that praying to saints and angels 
is not in itself idolatry, it is perfectly clear that its tendency is to 
lead to that sin. The Roman clergy, it is true, make a distinc- 
tion between the worship they offer to God, and that which they 
offer to saints, calling the former Latreia, or supreme worship, 
the latter Douleia, or inferior worship. The language, however, 
is perfectly indefinite ; and consequently the worshipper is left to 
determine for himself the degree of honor due to his patron saint. 
The tendency of human nature, as the history of the world 
abundantly proves, is to " worship and serve the creature more 
than the Creator." Anxious to obtain the assistance of the 
saints, the ignorant and superstitious will not long guard against 
ascribing to them attributes and honors due only to God. If, as 
we have seen to have been the fact, the Jews were led into 
idolatry, by regarding with religious veneration the brazen ser- 
pent; how much more likely will men be to fall into the same 
sin in worshipping the Virgin Mary, and the Apostles, and 
martyrs. 

Churches are erected in honor of the saints, and placed under 
their special patronage. Who has not heard of St. Peter's church 
at Rome? And I know not how many in the same city, are 
under the special protection of the Virgin. Every church built 
by Papists has the name of some patron saint, whose particular 
favor will, of course, be extended to those who devoutly visit it 
and worship in it. There is to be seen the image of the saint, 
and before it the clergy teach the people to kneel and pray. Is 
there no danger of idolatry in such cases ? Unless human nature 
has undergone a wonderful change, since Hezekiah broke the 
brazen serpent, there is. Nay, to prevent the prevalence of that 
sin among the people is impossible. 

Thompson, in his Recollections of Mexico, gives an account of 
the erection of a church to the honor of the Virgin Mother. In 
the year 1531, an Indian, Juan Diego, was going to the city of 



252 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

Mexico, early in the morning ; and as he was passing over a 
mountain about three miles from the city, he saw a female 
descending from the clouds. He was terribly frightened ; but 
she told him not to be alarmed, that she was the Virgin Mary; 
and that she had resolved on becoming the patron saint of the 
Mexican Indians, and on taking them under her especial protec- 
tion ; and she bade him go and tell the bishop that she desired to 
have a church built at the foot of the mountain, and dedicated to 
her. The Indian hastened to the city, and related to the bishop 
what had occurred ; but he was incredulous, and drove the Indian 
away. The next day he met the Virgin by appointment at the 
same place, and told her the bishop w^ould not believe him. 
" Very well," said she, ^' do you meet me here to-morrow at the 
same hour, and I will give you a proof which the bishop will not 
doubt." Juan Diego was punctual in meeting the appointment ; 
and the Virgin directed him to go to the top of the mountain, and 
to fill his apron with roses which he would find scattered profusely 
on the ground, and take them .to the bishop, which he did. When 
he opened his apron, he was amazed to find, that by another 
miracle, a portrait of the Virgin had been painted on it, dressed 
in a gorgeous cloak of blue velvet with stars of gold all over it. 
This was enough. The bishop was convinced, and the church 
ordered to be built. The Indians contributed as they could, and 
were converted by thousands. " The original miraculous portrait," 
says Thompson, " in a rich frame of gold inlaid with diamonds 
and pearls, is still to be seen in the church which was built, and 
almost every Mexican has one of more or less value in his house, 
and of every variety from cheap engravings to the most costly 
paintings ; below the picture are these characteristic Latin words, 
^ Not fecit taliter omni nationi.' * * * If the reader should again 
ask, and does any body believe this ? I answer, that on the anni- 
versary of this miracle I went to the church of Guadaloupe where 
more than fifty thousand people were assembled, among them 
the President Bravo and all his cabinet, the archbishop, and in 
short everybody in high station in Mexico. An oration in com- 
memoration of the event was delivered by a distinguished member 



THE WORSHIP OF SAINTS UNLAWFUL. 



253 



of the Mexican Congress. He described all the circumstances 
of the affair as I have given them, but with all the extravagance 
of Mexican rhetoric, just as one of our fourth of July orators 
would narrate the events of the Revolution. The President and 
others exchanged all the while smiles and glances of pride and 
exultation."* 

Can any one doubt, that, influenced by these wonderful stories 
told and credited by the archbishop and the clergy, and by all the 
splendor, pomp, and parade thrown around this affair, the multi- 
tude will be induced to place Mary instead of God, and to offer 
to her divine honor ? Or shall we say that human nature was 
one thing in Judea, where the brazen serpent was worshipped, 
and wholly another thing in Mexico ? 

The language addressed to the saints in the prayers prepared 
by the clergy, tends greatly to the same result. Let me repeat to 
you the Litany of the Blessed Virgin ; and whether it approxi- 
mates to idolatry, judge ye. 

Holy Mary, 

Holy Mother of God, 

Holy Virgin of Virgins, 

Mother of Christ, 

Mother of divine grace. 

Mother most pure, 

Mother most chaste, 

Mother undefiled. 

Mother unviolated, 

Mother most amiable, 

Mother most admirable. 

Mother of our Creator, 

Mother of our Redeemer, 

Virgin most prudent. 

Virgin most venerable. 

Virgin most renowned, 

Virgin most powerful, 

Virgin most merciful. 

Virgin most faithful, 

Mirror of Justice, 

Seat of Wisdom, 

* Recollec. of Mexico, pp. 110, 111, 112. 



;> Pray for us. 



254 



ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 



"^Pray for us. 



Cause of our joy, 
Spiritual Vessel, 

Vessel of Honor, 

Vessel of singular Devotion, 

Mystical Rose, 

Tower of David, 

Tower of Ivory, 

House of Gold, 

Ark of the Covenant, 

Gate of Heaven, 

Morning Star, 

Health of the Weak, 

Refuge of Sinners, 

Comfortress of the Afflicted, 

Help of Christians, 

Queen of Angels, 

Queen of Patriarchs, 

Queen of Prophets, 

Queen of Apostles, 

Queen of Martyrs, 

Queen of Confessors, 

Queen of Virgins, 

Queen of all Saints,* 
Passing by all the fulsome flattery lavished upon the Virgin, so 
unlike anything contained in the Word of God, I ask, what can be 
the meaning of the expressions. Morning Star, Gate of Heaven, 
Refuge of Sinners, Seat of Wisdom, Cause of our Joy, &c., &c.? 
Is not this language just such as is applied in the Scriptures to 
Christ, and to him only ? 

But we have something even stronger than this. The follow- 
ing specimens of idolatrous worship of the Virgin are found in 
the Psalter of the Virgin Mary, compiled by St. Bonaventura, 
contained in Chemnizius' Examen Consilii Tridentini. This 
saint has actually substituted, in the Psalms, the name of Mary 
for the name of God ! — ascribing to her divine perfections, and 
giving her divine honor and worship. 

In Psalm ix we read as follows : *^ I will confess to thee, O 
Lady, with my whole heart, and I will declare among the people 
thy praise and thy glory. For to thee is glory due, giving of 
* True Piety, pp. 1G5-166. 



THE WORSHIP OF SAINTS UNLAWFUL. 255 

thanks, and the voice of praise. Let sinners find grace with God 
through thee, the author (inventrice) of grace and salvation. 

Psalm X. I trust in the Lady, because of the sweetness of 
the mercy of her name. Her eyes look upon the poor, and her 
hands are extended to the orphan and the widow. Seek ye 
her from your youth, and she will exalt you before the face of 
the people. Let her mercy take away the multitude of your sins, 
and her faithfulness, pleasing to God, confer abundance of merits 
upon us. Extend to us thine arm, holy Virgin, and turn not thy 
glorious countenance from us. 

Psalm xxi. God, my God, look upon me by thy merits, holy 
Virgin Mary. O, my mistress, I have cried to thee day and 
night, and thou hast made thy mercy with thy servant. Because 
I have hoped in thy grace, thou hast taken away everlasting re- 
proach from me. Let the families of the Gentiles adore thee, 
and let all orders of angels glorify thee. 

Psalm xxiii. The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof, 
but thou, most holy Mother, reignest with him forever. Thou 
hast put on glory and honor. The splendor of the sun is upon 
thy head, and the beauty of the moon under thy feet. The shin- 
ing stars adorn thy throne ; the stars glorify thee, Morning 
Star. Remember us, O Lady, in thy loving kindness, and make 
us worthy of glorifying thy name. 

Psalm xxix. I will exalt thee, O Lady, since thou hast receiv- 
ed me ; from my unjust adversary thou wilt deliver me. Thou 
wilt turn unto me, and quicken me," &:c. 

The Scriptures, I have said, contain not a prayer, not even one 
petition, addressed to saint or angel. St. Bonaventura undertakes 
to supply this " lack of service ;" and for the purpose of doing 
this, he boldly corrupts the inspired Psalms, and teaches all who 
read his psalter, to commit the grossest idolatry ! No wonder 
the Roman clergy have passed laws, enforced by severe penalties, 
to prevent the general reading of the Scriptures. They are well 
aware that the spirit of the noble Bereans is fatal to their faith 
and to their authority. 

But the Pope of Rome, " the center of unity," who has the 



256 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

chief authority in defining articles of faith, teaches his people to 
commit idolatry. Let me read a brief extract from the Encycli- 
cal Letter of Gregory XVI, published in 1832. "But that all 
may have a successful and happy issue, let us raise our eyes to 
the most blessed Virgin Mary, who alone destroys heresies^ who is 
our greatest hope^ yea, the entire ground of our hope. May she 
exert her patronage to draw down an efficacious blessing on our 
desires, our plans, and proceedings, in the present straitened con- 
dition of the Lord's flock. We will also implore in humble 
prayer,, from Peter, the prince of the Apostles, and from his fel- 
low Apostle Paul, that you may all stand as a wall to prevent 
any other foundation than what hath been laid." When the 
pope himself uses such language concerning the saints, no won- 
der if the people become idolators. If Mary alone destroys he- 
resies — if she is the entire ground of our hope ; what is left for 
Christ to do ? What need have we of any Saviour but the 
Virgin ? 

5. Connected with the doctrine of saint worship, is the notion, 
which affords additional proof of its erroneousness, that particu- 
lar towns, districts, or countries, or particular classes or profes- 
sions of men, are taken under the special patronage of particular 
saints. Mary, as we have just seen, is believed to have taken 
the Mexican Indians under her special protection ; and the poor 
deluded creatures rely on her aid, just as if it were true that she 
had made them the special objects of her care. St. Blase, as we 
learn from Rev. Alban Butler, *' is the principal patron of the 
commonwealth of Ragusa," and it is affirmed that he was espe- 
cially successful in curing sore throats, »'In the holy wars," 
says Butler, " his relics were dispersed over the west, and his vene- 
ration was propagated by many miraculous cures, especially of 
sore throats." From some cause not certainly known, the wool- 
comhers elected him as the titular saint of their profession. " No 
other reason, than the great devotion of the people to this cele- 
brated martyr of the church, seems to have given occasion to the 
wool-combers to choose him the titular patron of their profes- 
sion ; on which account his festival is still kept by them with a 



THE WORSHIP OF SAINTS UNLAWFUL. 257 

solemn guild at Norwich."* Many other saints have had simi- 
lar appointments, but it is more than doubtful whether they pay 
any attention to them. It is extremely probable that St. Blase 
has never considered himself bound to take care of wool-combers ; 
that St. Patrick has little to do with Ireland ; and that St. An- 
thony pays no attention to horses. 

This feature of Romanism is of Pagan origin. The Pagans 
of ancient times peopled every country with gods, and gave to 
every district its patron deity. Particular departments were as- 
signed to each of the principal gods, in the government of the 
world. Jupiter was the god of heaven ; Neptune presided over 
the sea, and Pluto reigned over the infernal regions. Agricul- 
tural pursuits were assigned to Ceres, war to Mars, <fcc. Rome 
has adopted the principle, and put saints in place of heathen 
gods and goddesses. But do we find anything of all this in the 
Bible ? Would any one, reading the Scriptures to ascertain the 
character of Christianity, ever imagine that the worship and 
patronage of departed saints constituted a prominent feature 
of it ? 

6. Connected with the superstitions already noticed, is the 
custom of carrying in public processions the images of the saints. 
Thompson, in his Recollections of Mexico, gives an account of 
" our Lady of Remedies," which is instructive. Cortes and his 
army, exposed to great danger from the incessant attacks of the 
natives of Mexico, retreated to the top of a hill, twelve miles from 
the city. In the knapsack of one of his soldiers, it is said, he 
found a small alabaster doll, about eight inches high, with the 
nose broken, and one eye out, which the soldier had brought with 
him from Spain. This he exhibited to his wounded and despond- 
ing soldiers, told them it was an image of the Virgin Mary which 
she had sent him from heaven, and that she had promised to heal 
their wounds, and secure to them the conquest of Mexico. This 
circumstance excited in the army prodigious enthusiasm, under 
the influence of which they again conquered Mexico. Cortes 
immediately built a chapel on the hill to which he had retreated, 

* Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, &c., v. ii, p. 23. 
11* 



258 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

and dedicated it to the Virgin Mary of Remedies. "In the 
chapelj" says Thompson, " he placed the miraculous image, where 
it has been kept for more than three hundred years with wax 
candles always burning, and maids of honor in constant attend- 
ance. I asked a gentleman, connected with the church, what 
was the value of the diamonds worn by the image of our Lady 
of Remedies when I saw it in the procession. He said he did 
not know ; but that her whole wardrobe and jewels were worth 
more than a million of dollars. Among these are different 
petticoats of diamonds, pearls, and emeralds. On special occasions, 
our Lady of Remedies is carried to the city, such as the prevalence 
of the cholera or other pestilence. When it is found that the 
disease is abating in any particular quarter of the city, the image 
is carried there ; if the disease disappears, it is of course the work 
of " our Lady of Remedies ; " if it continues, it is to be attributed 
to the sins of the people, which are said to be so great that the 
powerful intercession of the Mother of God cannot avail to have 
them pardoned. The cures of our Lady of Remedies, like those 
of humbler physicians, are by no means gratuitous, but her ser- 
vices are a source of large revenue to the church." 

Such is the history of this wonderful image and its virtues. 
It may be said, that only the more ignorant and superstitious 
believe it. Thompson says, "Everybody believes it, and it 
would be regarded in Mexico little less than blasphemy to doubt 
it." In proof of this statement, he says, " The anniversary of 
the presentation of this image to Cortes is religiously observed, 
and of all the religious festivals in Mexico it is the most numer- 
ously attended. This anniversary is in August. I had some 
curiosity to witness it, and rode out to the chapel, twelve miles 
from Mexico. I can form no accurate estimate of the immense 
concourse which was assembled. If I were to say fifty thousand, 
I might be under the mark ; If I were to say a hundred thousand, 
I might not be over it. * * * It was this miserable doll which 
I saw carried in that magnificent procession of which I have 
spoken, in which were all the high dignitaries of the government, 



THE WORSHIP OF SAINTS UNLAWFUL. 259 

the church, and the army ; and following immediately the host 
itself, which Catholics believe to be Christ in the flesh."* 

In all Roman countries similar scenes are witnessed. Need I 
ask, whether there is anything in the Scriptures even distantly 
resembling this miserable superstition ? Is it not evidently one 
of the many unchristian superstitions which flow from the doctrine 
of saint worship ? In vain do Roman writers attempt to defend 
the use of the images of the saints, by referring to the fact, that 
over the ark of the covenant there were " two carved images of 
cherubims."t They received no religious worship ; and no 
prayers were offered to those holy beings thus represented. 

7. Intimately connected with the doctrines of image and saint 
worship, stands the worship or veneration of relics. The Coun- 
cil of Trent teaches, that " the holy bodies of the holy martyrs 
are to be venerated by the faithful, since by them God bestows 
many benefits upon men. So that they are to be wholly con- 
demned, as the church has long before condemned them, and 
now repeats the sentence, who affirm that veneration and honor 
are not due to the relics of the saints, or that it is a useless thing 
that the faithful should honor these and other sacred monuments, 
and that the memorials of the saints are in vain frequented to 
obtain their health and assistance." 

Among the relics most venerated by Papists is the cross on 
which our Lord was crucified. This precious relic was found, 
we are told, by Helen, the mother of Constantine the Great. 
" That pious Empress," says Reeve, " now eighty years of age, 
had long wished to visit the land which the Son of God, in 
human form, had sanctified by his footsteps, and to find the cross 
on which he had consummated the world's redemption. She 
was told that, to succeed in this undertaking, she must first find 
the holy sepulchre, which lay buried, according to tradition, under 
a mountain of earth." The Empress, it seems, was not discouraged 
in her arduous undertaking. " Numbers of hands," Reeve goes 
on to state, " were set to work, a w^hole mountain was removed, 
they came to the surface of the old mount of Calvary : the holy 

* Recollec. of Mexico, pp. 105-108. f Milner's End of Con., Let. xxxii. 



260 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

sepulchre was at last discovered, and near it was found the 
cross, with other instruments of our Saviour's crucifixion. The 
memory of this invention is celebrated annually by the church 
on the third of May."* The cross, it seems, had lain there for 
three hundred years^ and was yet perfectly sound. This is re- 
markable. But since two thieves were crucified at the same 
time and place, the question might arise, how could the Empress 
determine on which our Saviour was crucified ? The Roman 
Breviary throws light on this difficult question. It informs us 
that when the place, where the cross lay, was cleared of the rub- 
bish, "three crosses deeply buried were drawn out, and separated 
from them was found the title affixed to the cross of our Lord, 
which, when it could not be ascertained to which of the three it 
had been affixed, a miracle removed the doubt. For Macarius, 
Bishop of Jerusalem, having ofiTered prayers to God, applied each 
of the crosses to a woman laboring under a severe disease ; to 
whom, when the others were of no service, the third cross being 
applied cured her instantly." The Empress, we are further in- 
formed, caused a splendid church to be erected over the holy 
sepulchre, where she left part of the cross ; the other part she 
gave to Constantine, who had it placed in the church of the 
Holy Cross in Rome. The empress was also so happy as to find 
the 7iails with which the Saviour's body was fastened to the cross. 
All this is wonderful enough ; but the most unaccountable 
thing of all is the singular indifference of the Apostles and prim- 
itive Christians about this most sacred and valuable relic. It is 
said, Adrian, the Emperor, in the second century, caused the 
whole circumference of Calvary to be covered with an immense 
mound of earth. Under this mound the cross was found. But 
how happened the Apostles and primitive Christians to leave it 
exposed in this manner ? Did they entertain the same faith pro- 
pounded by the Council of Trent? Would the Roman clergy 
allow such a relic to remain, as the Apostles left the cross, to be 
profaned and destroyed? Were the Apostles ignorant of the 
wonderful virtues residing in it ? Paul did, indeed, glory in the 

* Hist, of Church, vol. i, sec. ix, p. 155. 



THE WORSHIP OF SAINTS UNLAWFUL. 261 

doctrines of the cross ; but he evidently paid no attention what- 
ever to the wood of the cross. 

The preservation of the cross is sufficiently wonderful ; but 
more surprising is that of the seamless garment which our 
Saviour wore when he w^as condemned to be crucified, and for 
which the Roman soldiers cast lots. Of this garment we have 
no further account in the New Testament. The Apostles seem 
to have had no more concern about it than the wood of the cross. 
But we are gravely informed that it has been recently exhibited 
at Treves, and that it wrought divers wonderful cures ! The 
exhibition of this pretended robe of Christ, which called to 
Treves an immense concourse of the devout, was the occasion of 
the recent schism headed by Ronge and Czerski. The inven- 
tions of the Roman clergy are sometimes too glaring not to be 
detected even by the ignorant and superstitious^ 

But the relics in most general use are the bodies, the garments, 
&c., of reputed saints, which are scattered in all directions for 
the edification of the faithful. In the Scriptures we read of many 
deaths and burials of godly men ; but their bodies were permit- 
ted to rest quietly in their graves. There was no cutting of them 
in pieces, and carrying a head here, an arm there, and a toe yon- 
der. Nor were their tombs ever visited for the purpose of reli- 
gious worship. When Stephen, the first Christian martyr, was 
murdered by the Jewish mob, we read that " devout men carried 
Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him." * 
We hear nothing more of the body of this man of God. It 
seems to have been permitted to rest where it was buried. But, 
strangely enough, the Roman clergy tell us they have it in their 
possession! Butler says, ^'John of Glastenbury informs us, that 
in the reign of King Edgar, in the year of Christ, 962, the relics 
of St. David were translated with great solemnity from the vale 
of Ross to Glastenbury, together with a portion of the relics of 
St. Stephen, the protomartyr! " t Indeed such has been the rage 
for relics, for several centuries past, that no one, male or female, 
who becomes a Roman saint, can hope to sleep quietly in the 

* Acts viii, 2« t Lives of the Fathers, &c., v. ii, pp. 180-181. 



262 ROMANISxM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

grave. No Roman church is regarded as furnished for divine 
service, until some bones and other relics of reputed saints have 
heen deposited in it Butler seems to feel that he has not com- 
pleted the biography of any saint until he has told in what places 
the body or fragments of it are to be found ! Of St. Bridget he 
says, "A church of St, Bridget, i» the pioviuce of Athol, was re- 
puted famous for miracles^ and a portion of her relics was kept 
with great veneration in a monastery of regular canons at Aber- 
nethe." Of St. Walburdge he says, " Her relics were translated 
in the year 87Q, to Arehstadt, on the 21st of September^ and the 
principal part still remains there in the churdi anciently cralled 
of the Holy Cross, but since that lime of St. Walburdge. A con- 
siderable portion is venerated with singular devotion at Furnes^ 
where, by the pious zeal of Baldwin, suraamed of Iron, it was 
received on the 25th of April, and enshrined on the first of May^ 
on which day her chief festival is placed,'^ 6lc. Of St. Cungun- 
des he says, ^ Her body was carried to Bamberg, and buried 
near that of her husband. The greatest part of hex relics stiM 
remains in the same church." Of St. Casimir he says, '^ His 
body and all the rich stuffs it was wrapped in, w^ere found quite 
entire, and exhaling a sweet smell, one hurkdred and twenty years 
after his death, notwithstanding the excessive moistiFie of his 
vault. It is honored in a large rich chapel of marble, built on 
purpose in that church.^* 

Similar accounts are given of the uses made of the bodies of 
other reputed saints^ by which it is believed stupendous miracles 
have been and are wrought. Amor^ the most remarkable are 
those by St. Wereburge, such as " many miraculous cures for 
the sick, and preservations of that cily [where her body was de- 
posited] from the assaults of the Welsh, Danes, and Scots ; and 
in 1180 from a terrible fire, which threatened to consume the 
whole cityj but was suddenly extinguished when the monks car- 
ried in procession the shrine of the virgin, in devout prayer."^* 
These miracles, however, are generally wrought " in a corner," 
or reported as occurring in a distant country, and Papists are the 

* Butler's Lives, v. ii, pp, 12, 155^ 191, 194. t Ibid., p. 28. 



I 
1 



THE WORSHIP OF SAINTS UNLAWFUL. 263 

witnesses. The cathedral of Cincinnati is enriched with quite a 
supply of relics, but we hear of no miracles wrought by means 
of them ! Why not ? Perhaps Bishop Purcell does report 
miracles in Europe. In looking over the Annals of the So- 
ciety for the Propagation of the Faith, some years since, I was 
quite surprised to find an account of a wonderful miracle said to 
have been wrought by Bishop Flaget, in the vicinity of Bards- 
town, Ky., where I then resided, by which a dying child was re- 
stored almost instantly to life and health, and which resulted in 
the conversion of the whole family. I made diligent inquiry, 
but could hear nothing concerning the miracle or the family. I 
published the account, and called on the Bishop, then residing 
there, and his clergy for information. They maintained a pro- 
found silence ! And when the same Bishop went to France, we 
soon had, in the United States, accounts of miracles wrought by 
him there. The miracles wrought by the dead bodies of those 
called saints, are like unto these. 

The truth is, many of the relics so sacredly preserved and 
venerated by a priest-ridden people, are not the relics of those 
whose names they bear. Who, for example, believes that the 
Roman clergy have in their possession the body of Stephen, the 
protomartyr ? It is said, and no doubt truly, that many of the 
saints have a greater number of heads, arms, legs, &c., than origi- 
nally belonged to them ! Mosheim has given the true history of 
this miserable superstition. " It was not enough," says he, giv- 
ing a history of the church in the 9th century, " to reverence de- 
parted saints, and to confide in their intercession and succors ; 
it was not enough to clothe them with an imaginary power of 
healing diseases, working miracles, and delivering from all sorts 
of calamities and dangers ; their bones, their clothes, the apparel 
and furniture they had possessed during life, the very ground 
which they had touched, or in which their putrified carcases were 
laid, were treated with a stupid veneration, and supposed to retain 
the marvellous virtue of healing all disorders, both of body and 
mind, and of defending such as possessed them, against all the 
assaults and devices of Satan. The consequence of this wretch- 



264 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

ed notion was, that every one was eager to provide himself with 
these salutary remedies ; for which purpose great numbers un- 
dertook fatiguing and perilous voyages, and subjected themselves 
to all sorts of hardships ; w^hile others made use of this delusion 
to accumulate their riches, and to impose upon the miserable mul- 
titude by the most impious and shocking inventions. As the de- 
mand for relics was prodigious and universal, the clergy employ- 
ed all their dexterity to satisfy these demands, and were far from 
being nice in the methods they used for that end. The bodies of 
the saints were sought by fasting and prayer, instituted by the 
priest in order' to obtain a divine answer and an infallible direc- 
tion, and this pretended direction never failed to accomplish their 
desires ; the holy carcass was always found, and that always in 
consequence, as they impiously gave out, of the suggestions and 
inspiration of God himself. Each discovery of this kind was 
attended with excessive demonstrations of joy, and animated the 
zeal of these devout seekers to enrich the church still more and 
more with this new kind of treasure. Many travelled with this 
view into the eastern provinces, and frequented the places which 
Christ and his disciples had honored with their presence, that 
with the bones and other sacred remains of the first heralds of the 
gospel, they might comfort dejected minds, calm trembling con- 
sciences, save sinking states, and defend their inhabitants from 
all sorts of calamities. Nor did the pious travelers return home 
empty ; the craft, dexterity, and knavery of the Greeks, found a 
rich prey in the stupid credulity of the Latin relic hunters, and 
made a profitable commerce of this new devotion. The latter 
paid considerable sums for legs and arms, skulls and jaw-bones, 
several of which were Pagan and some not human, and other 
things that were supposed to have belonged to the primitive wor- 
thies of the Christian church; and thus the Latin churches came 
to the possession of those celebrated relics of St. Mark, St. James, 
St. Bartholomew, Cyprian, Pantaleon, and others, which they 
show at this day with so much ostentation."* 

And what is there in the Scriptures of Truth, to encourage 
* Mosheim's Hist, v. ii, cent, ii, pp. 37-^. 



THE WORSHIP OF SAINTS UNLAWFUL. 265 



this rage for relics — this tearing into fragments the bodies of dead 
men and women, and placing them, as a sacred treasure, in the 
church ? Let Bishop Milner tell us : " Surely Dr. Porteus will 
not say that there is no warrant in Scripture for honoring these, 
when he recollects that from the body of St. Paul, were brought 
unto the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed 
from them. Acts xix, 12 ; and that, when the dead man was let 
down and touched^ the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood upon 
his feet, 2 Kings xiii, 21."* Did the inspired men of the Jewish 
church reason on this subject as Dr. Milner does ? They knew 
the place where E'lisha was buried ; and they knew that this mir- 
acle had been wrought there. Did they go, or encourage others 
to go, on pilgrimages to pray to the saint ? Or did they take up 
his body, and bear it in triumph to the temple ? Or did they 
give it out by parcels and fragments to the people as a method 
of promoting their piety, and of securing them against tempta- 
tions, diseases, and calamities ? Nothing of all this was done. 
Among the Jews, us already remarked, the dead were permitted 
to repose undisturbed in their graves. 

But handkerchiefs and aprons from the body of Paul wrought 
miracles. Precisely so. Paul was enabled, whilst living and 
preaching the gospel, to work miracles in this way ; but does it 
follow that the body of Paul, when dead, was to be venerated, 
and carried about in fragments to work miracles ? Paul wrought 
miracles whilst engaged in preaching the gospel ; therefore the 
dead bodies of the saints are to be kept, venerated, and placed in 
churches, that they may secure blessings to the living ! Such is 
the Bishop's logic. But why did he not tell us that the Apostles 
sent and took the body of John the Baptist, and by means of it 
wrought great miracles? Ah, the Bishop was sorely pressed. 
He was anxious to prove that the cliurch of Rome is right in 
teaching her children to venerate relics and to keep them in order 
to secure the divine favor ; and he was constrained to refer to 
cases which prove just the opposite. 

From these multiplied and ever multiplying superstitions, let 

1 Q * End of Con., Let. xxxix. 



266 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

us turn with thankful hearts to the pure, simple, spiritual worship 
of the sacred Scriptures. There we learn that God is a Spirit ; 
and they who worship him must worship him in spirit and in 
truth. There we learn that " there is one God, and one mediator 
between God and man, the man Christ Jesus ; who gave himself 
a ransom for all to be testified in due time."* This mediator is 
all-sufficient ; for " by one offering he hath perfected forever them 
that are sanctified ;" and he is able to save them to the uttermost 
that come to God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make interces- 
sion for them.t There we find no images of God, of Christ, 
and of Saints, no prayers to angels or to saints, no relics. These 
are all the inventions of superstitious or cunning men, which dis- 
honor God and fatally deceive the souls of men. 

* I Tim. ii, 5, 6. t Heb. x, 14, and vii, 25. 



INVENTIONS OF ROME. 267 



LECTURE X. 

Mark vii, 4. " And many other things there be, which they have received 
to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and of tables." 

One of the forms of error which has been most popular in 
every age of the world, is that which ascribes great efficacy to 
ordinances and ceremonies. The carnal mind rises in opposition 
to that pure, spiritual worship and service which only are accept- 
able to God ; but it is quite ready to embrace any system of 
religion, which, without the mortification of sinful passions, 
promises heaven to those who are zealous in their attendance upon 
external ordinances. All men desire some religion in the service 
of which they may enjoy an approving conscience, and on which 
they may found the comfortable hope of future happiness ; and 
they are sufficiently disposed to ^^ cleanse the outside of the cup 
and the platter," provided the inside be left in its impurity. 

When errors of this class are embraced, there is manifested a 
strong disposition, not only to pervert the ordinances divinely 
appointed, but to multiply those of man's invention. In proof of 
this I need only refer to the history of Paganism and Judaism. 
When Noah and his family left the ark, the ordinances which God 
had appointed, were few and simple ; but soon their true design, 
passed out of view, and their number, immensely multiplied, be- 
came an oppressive and intolerable burden. For the Jewish 
church God appointed ordinances, one would think, sufficient in 
number and variety ; but the time came when they were no 
longer regarded as " a shadow of good things to come," but as 
possessing intrinsic efficacy to justify and save. And just in the 
proportion that vital piety declined in the church, did the zeal for 
ceremonies increase. When our Saviour appeared on earth, the 
corruption had become general. The men who sat in Moses' 



268 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

seat had become '' blind leaders of the blind." They taught the 
people to '' tithe, mint, anise, and cummin," whilst the weightier 
matters of the law were disregarded. They multiplied fasts and 
ablutions. When they came from the market they dared not eat^ 
until they had washed their hands. And many other traditions 
had been received and imposed on the people ; such as the bap- 
tism of cups, pots, and brazen vessels. Even their household 
utensils must undergo frequent religious purgations. All these 
traditions led to the rejection of the commandments of God, and 
made his word of none effect. And let it be remarked, too, that 
these traditions were enforced by the authority of the church ; for 
they were " the traditions of the elders," and were observed by 
" the Pharisees and all the Jews." And because they were tra- 
ditions of the churchy our Saviour was condemned by the Scribes 
and Pharisees for disregarding them. " Then the Scribes and 
Pharisees asked him. Why walk not thy disciples according to 
the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands'?" 

The great practical evil resulting from this error, is, that under 
its influence men undervalue true religion, pure morality, just as 
much as they overrate ordinances and ceremonies. So far as these 
last were concerned, no class of religionists were ever more reli- 
gious than the Pharisees ; but as to pure morality they were most 
corrupt, and were, therefore, compared by our Lord to whited 
sepulchres. Their religion did not prevent them from devouring 
widows' houses under pretence of promoting the kingdom of 
God, nor induce them to regard " the weightier matters of the law, 
justice, judgment, and mercy." 

The history of the Jewish church is, in this respect, substantially 
the history of the church of Rome, with this difference, that the 
latter has gone far greater lengths in multiplying ordinances, and 
ceremonies, and observances, which make void the word of God, 
than did the former even in the most corrupt period of her history. 
I propose now to point out a number of those unscriptural 
additions. I shall not attempt, because the time would fail me, to 
mention them all ; for their name is legion. 

I. The first class of corruptions I notice, is the appointment of 



i 



I 



INVENTION OF SAINTS' DAYS. 269 

holy days^ to be observed religiously by the people. Among 
them we find such as these : Ember-days, Christmas, Epiphany, 
Ash- Wednesday, Lent, Passion-Sunday, Passion-Week, Palm- 
Sunday, Holy- Week, Maun day-Thursday, Good-Friday, Holy- 
Saturday, Easter-Sunday, Easter-Week, Whit-Sunday, Trinity- 
Sunday. Besides these and others like them, the church has a 
multitude of saint's days^ such as the Feast of All Saints, Com- 
memoration of All Souls, Octave of All Samts, St. Zavier's, St. 
Andrew's, &.C., 6lc. If any individual should undertake to observe 
all these days, he might not have one day in the year for the 
ordinary business of life. Now it is a fact, that all these days, 
with the services peculiar to them, are observed simply on the 
authority of the Roman clergy. Certain it is that in the New 
Testament we find not the most distant allusion to any of them. 
We learn there that all the holy days which were peculiar to the 
Jewish dispensation were abolished. Paul censured the Galla- 
tian Christians, because they still observed " days, and months, 
and times, and years ; "* but he gave not the slightest intimation 
that other holy days, equal or greater in number, had been, or 
were to be, appointed for the Christian church. Why did he not ? 
In the New Testament we find but one day regarded as a Sabbath, 
the first day of the w^eek. John the Apostle says, " I was in the 
spirit on the Lord's day ;^^\ and the Apostle directed Christians to 
observe, as a day sacred to religious service, the first day of the 
week — the day on which our Lord rose from the dead.:f This 
was the only Sabbath our Saviour appointed for his church ; and 
this, according to the commandment in the moral law, he required 
all to remember, to keep it holy. But the Roman clergy, in their 
wisdom, have appointed a multitude of holy days, and instituted 
services peculiar to them. The consequence is, the Sabbath 
appointed by the Head of the Church is trampled under foot. In 
every country where Romanism predominates the desecration of 
the Sabbath is general. In the morning there is service in their 
churches ; but the remaining portion of the day is devoted to 
gambling, cock-fighting, bull-fights, theaters, &c., &c. This humil- 

* Gal. iv, 10. + Rev. i, 10. t Acts xx, 7. 1 Cor. xvi, 2. 



270 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

iating fact is candidly acknowledged by Bishop Trevern. I must 
read to you his language on this subject : 

" For the honor of the English governmentj and for the shame 
of Catholic countries, I am bound to publish that the Sunday is 
observed in England with an exterior regularity which we unfor- 
tunately are far from equaling. On this day, especially conse- 
crated to God, the laws and customs allow no public assemblies 
out of the churches and temples : no balls, no routes, no mas- 
querades, no Renelagh, no Vauxhall ; all theatrical amusements 
are forbidden. In London, where commerce is so prodigiously 
carried on, the public conveyances remain at rest, the course of 
letters is suspended, the post does not receive them, although it is 
permitted to them in the evening to make their way to their des- 
tination : throughout the whole kingdom, stage-wagons employed 
in trade or commerce, stop on the high roads. I know not whe- 
ther an act passed upon a Sunday would not be annulled by its 
very date alone. Certain, however, it is, that the civil power is 
obliged to suspend its pursuits, and concede to the debtor the 
right of appearing freely on the day of the Lord. On this day, 
moreover, the Parliament is closed, in spite of the emergency of 
affairs ; and I have often seen it respectfully interrupt its sessions 
at the approach of great solemnities. It must be confessed that 
there is in these laws a tone of wisdom and gravity that makes an 
impression on the mind. English persons of distinction have 
often testified to me their astonishment at not finding in Catholic 
countries the same respect for the Sunday. They have declared 
to me that they had been much scandalized on the subject ; and 
certainly they had but too much reason to be so." * 

Mark well this testimony of Bishop Trevern. He not only 
acknowledges that England, which is but partially under direct 
religious influence, is far ahead of some Catholic countries, but 
of Catholic countries generally, in the observance of the Sabbath ; 
and he more than intimates what are the common employments 
in which the Sabbath is spent in those countries — balls, routes, 
masquerades, and the like ! And so open and shameless is the 

* Arnica. Discuss., v. i, p. 143. 



DESECRATION OF THE SABBATH. 271 

profanation of the Lord's Day, that English persons of distinc- 
tion, not generally very Puritanic in their views, had often testi- 
fied to the Bishop their astonishment, and declared that they were 
greatly scandalized at what they witnessed ! And in the United 
States, the state of things, so far as the influence of the Roman 
clergy can extend, is not likely to be better. I have read, in the 
Catholic Magazine^ of April, 1845, which is the official organ of 
Archbishop Eccleston, of Baltimore, a review of the proceedings of 
the Sabbath Convention which met in that city a short time be- 
fore, of which John Quincy Adams was Chairman. The review 
begins by pronouncing such conventions unconstitutioyial — -thus 
teaching us what we may expect, should our Constitution ever be 
subjected to Romish interpretation ! " We also doubt the consti- 
tutionality of such conventions as the one alluded to ; but, assur- 
edly, if such an exhibition is not against the letter, it is opposed 
to the spirit of the Constitution." I give a single specimen of 
the Archbishop's regard for the Sabbath day In answer to the 
question, whether it is right to play at cards on that holy day, the 
Review says, " We answer, that to play at cards, as many do, 
making use of profane and blasphemous language, betting mo- 
ney, which justice and charity forbid us to squander, in bad 
company or in disreputable haunts — to play at cards in any one 
of these ways is criminal not only on Sunday, but on every day 
of the week. But to play at cards without any of those circum- 
stances which lead to immorality is not more sinful on Sundays 
than on other days, and implies nothing more unlawful than a 
conversation or simple amusement would be." 

Perhaps it may be well to give one more specimen. The Re- 
view pleads for the running of public conveyances on the Sab- 
bath. "As travelling is not strictly forbidden on the Lord's day, 
if the cars run between Washington and our city, we may go to 
the former place on Sunday for the purpose of visiting a friend, 
and still have time enough to attend worship, while the leisure 
enjoyed in the cars affords an excellent opportunity of reading 
and meditation." 

Such is the tendency of Romanism to immorality. When the 



272 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

Jews multiplied their fasts and ablutions, they neglected the 
weightier matters of the law. In the proportion that they re- 
garded the commandments of men, they neglected the law of 
God. So has it been with Rome. Just in the proportion that 
she has multiplied holy days, which Christ never authorized her 
to appoint, has she disregarded the Lord's Day, until in every 
country where the Roman influence prevails, it is a day on which 
more sin is committed than on any other day of the week, and 
until one of her principal ecclesiastics is not ashamed to justify 
such desecration ! Even civil rulers have been convinced that 
the observance of the Sabbath is necessary to the morals of the 
country ; but the Roman clergy, while claiming peculiar sanctity^ 
trample it under foot 1 Let every friend of religion and of oui 
free institutions know, that just to the extent to which Romanism 
shall prevail in this country will the Sabbath become a day of 
dissipation and immorality— as injurious as it has hitherto been 
beneficial to the people and the country. 

J" 2. Prominent among thd inventions of the Roman clergy is 
what they call the sacrament of extreme unction. It was in- 
stituted, they tell us, by James the Apostle, in the following 
language : " Is any sick among you ? let him call for the 
elders of the church ; and let them pray over him anointing 
him with oil in the name of the Lord : and the prayer of faith 
shall save the sick ; and if he have committed sins, they shall be 
forgiven him."* The matter of the sacrament, the Catechism of 
Trent teaches, is " oil of olives, consecrated by episcopal hands. 
No other sort of oil can be the matter of this sacrament ; and 
this its matter is most significant of its efficacy." The form of 
the sacrament is thus stated : «< By this holy unction, and through 
his great mercy, may God indulge thee whatever sins thou hast 
committed, by sight, smell, touch, &c., &c."t It is to be admin- 
istered, not to persons in health, though on a dangerous voyage^ 
or about to go into a dangerous battle, or already condemned to 
death, but only to those " whose malady is such as to excite ap- 
prehensions of approaching dissolution." It is a sacrament, it 
* James v, 14-15. ^ p. 207. 



EXTREME UNCTION. 273 



would seem, very important to all, yet which multitudes can never 
enjoy ! It is to be "administered, not only for the health of the 
soul, but also for that of the body." " The sacred unction is to 
be applied, not to the entire body, but to the organs of sense only 
— to the eyes the organs of sight, to the ears of hearing, to the 
nostrils of smelling, to the mouth of taste and speech, to the 
hands of touch, to the loins which are, as it were, the seat of 
concupiscense, and to the feet by which we move from one place 
to another." The sick person must first confess to the priest, 
and partake of the wafer before extreme unction can be adminis- 
tered. As to the efficacy of the sacrament, the Catechism teaches 
" that the grace of this sacrament remits sins, especially lighter 
offenses, or, as they are commonly called, venial sins. Its pri- 
mary object is not to remit mortal sins." " It quiets fear, illum- 
ines the gloom in which the soul is enveloped, fills it with pious 
and holy joy, fortifies us against the assaults of Satan," &c.* 

That this sacrament is a human invention, is clear. 1st. Be- 
cause the anointing of which James speaks, was connected with 
and was designed for the restoration of the sick to health. " Let 
them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord, 
and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise 
him up." Observe, the promise of restoration to health is posi- 
tive, and therefore it must always follow the proper administra- 
tion and reception of the anointing. Such too, was the design 
and the effect of the anointing practiced by the twelve Apostles be- 
fore the crucifixion of Christ ; which, as the Catechism of Trent 
says, had some reference to the sacrament — for it is said, " they 
cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, 
and healed them,^^i But the extreme unction of the church of 
Rome is rather designed to prepare persons for death, than to 
raise them up. Rarely indeed, if ever, do we hear of a miracu- 
lous cure, even alleged to be wrought by means of it. The Cat- 
echism says, " Finally, the recovery of health, if advantageous 
for the sick person, is another effect of the sacrament. How- 
ever, should this effect not follow, it arises not from any defect 

* Cat. of Trent, pp. 208-211. f Mark vi, 12-13. 



274 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

in the sacrament, but from weakness of faith on the part of him 
by whom it is received, or of him by whom it is administered." 
Sad, indeed, must be the state of faith among Roman Catholics, 
when of all the multitudes constantly receiving extreme unction, 
none are restored to health by means of it ! 

The truth is, the anointing of which James speaks, like that 
previously practiced by the Apostles, was confined to the age of 
miracles, when the claims of Christianity were to be established 
by divine testimony. When, therefore, miraculous cures ceased 
to attend it, there was no more reason for its use. That such was 
its design is evident, from the fact that, much as the inspired Apos- 
tles say about justification, the remission of sins, and all that ap- 
pertains to preparation for heaven, they never once mention it, 
save in the case now under consideration. Indeed, the authors 
of the Catechism of Trent could not avoid making an important 
concession, in order to account for the fact that extreme unction 
fails to effect cures. " It may, however, be proper to observe," 
say they, " that Christianity, now that it has taken deep root in 
the minds of men, stands less in need of the aid of such miracles 
in our days, than in the early ages of the church."* This is 
true ; and, therefore, the anointing with oil with which miracu- 
lous cures were connected, ceased to be of use, when miracles 
ceased to be necessary. 

Extreme unction, with all the crossings, prayers, &c., is one 
of the multiplied inventions of Rome, the efifect of which is to 
turn the minds of the dying from the rich provisions of the gos- 
pel, and induce them to rely upon worthless ceremonies. It is 
cruel thus to deceive the dying in the last hours of their exis- 
tence, and to divert their minds from the true source of all con- 
solation. 

3. Among the multiplied inventions of Rome, it may be instruc- 
tive to notice some of the prayers she teaches her children to 
repeat. One of the most remarkable of these is " The Litany 
of the Blessed Sacrament " — a prayer to the consecrated bread 
and wine. It begins with petitions to Christ, to the Father, 

* p. 211. 



LITANY OF THE SACRAMENT. 275 

and to the Holy Spirit, and then continues in the following 

language: 

O living bread, which came down from heaven, 

O Saviour of Israel, who art truly a hidden God, 

O wheat of the elect, 

O wine, which maketh virgins to spring forth, 

O bread which is fat, and yields dainties to kings. 

Continual sacrifice, 

Clean oblation. 

Lamb without blemish. 

Food of angels. 

Hidden manna, 

Memorial of the wonders of God, 

Supersubstantial bread. 

Word made flesh, and dwelling among us. 

Holy victim. 

Chalice of benediction, 

Mystery of Faith, 

Most high and venerable Sacrament, 

Most holy sacrifice, truly propitiatory for the living and the 

dead. 
Heavenly antidote, by which we are preserved from sin, 
Most stupendous of all miracles, 
Memorial of the most sacred passion of our Lord, 
Gift of God, exceeding all fullness, 
Singular pledge of divine love. 
Overflow of divine liberality. 
Most holy and august Mystery, 
Remedy which confers Immortality, 
Awful and life-giving Sacrament, 

Bread, by the omnipotence of the Word changed into flesh. 
Unbloody sacrifice. 
Our food and our guest, 

Delicious banquet, at which ministering angels are present, 
Sacrament of piety. 
Bond of unity, 
Offerer and oblation, 

Spiritual sweetness tasted in its very source, 
Refection of holy Souls, 
Viatic of those who die in the Lord, 
Pledge of the glory to come. 
Be merciful ; spare us, O Lord,^^ 6lc.* 

* True Piety, pp. 280-282. 



I 



276 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

This is a specimen. It is not all, but it is enough to show the 
idolaify of Rome, and her imitation of pagan worship in the end- 
less and senseless repetitions which characterize her worship. 
Would any one who formed his judgment of the character of 
Christianity and of its worship from reading the Scriptures, ever 
dream that such a thing as this could constitute a part of it ? 
Why do we find nothing of the kind there ? Because we find 
nothing of the absurd doctrine on which it is founded. 

In the same book we find a prayer " to the sacred heart of 
Jesiis^ It reads thus : '' O most amiable Heart of my divine Re- 
deemer ! considering thy infinite love for all men and for me in 
particular, &.c. — I do this day consecrate myself to thee. * * * 
In particular I consecrate to thee my heart, &c. Receive it then, 
O divine Heart of Jesus, purify it, sanctify it, &c." We have here 
also a 'Sprayer to the sacred Heart of MaryJ^ ^' O sacred Heart 
of Mary, ever virgin and immaculate in her conception ; O heart 
the most holy, the most noble, the most grand that ever was formed 
by the hand of God in a pure creature ! O heart, full of grace, 
goodness, mercy, and love, &c., vouchsafe to accept of the small 
tribute of my humble homage. Prostrate before thee, O most pure 
heart of the Mother of Mercy, I wish to render thee all the honor 
which is justly due to the heart of the Mother of my God,"* 

Is there a difference between Jesus and the heart of Jesus ; or 
between Mary and the heart of Mary ? If there is, what is it ? 
If not, what is the meaning of a prayer directed, not to Jesus, but 
to his heart ? Is there any such prayer in God's word ? God 
alone can tell us what kind of worship is acceptable to him. 
Has He taught us to ofier prayers such as these ? 

On the 398th page of this book we have ^' The Litany of the 
Infant Jesus." It reads thus : 

" Infant, Jesus Christ, 

Infant, true God, 

Infant, Son of the living God, 

Infant, Son of the Virgin Mary, 

Infant, begotten before the day-star, 

Infant, the Word made flesh, 

*p.392. 



§5 






BLESSING OF ASHES. 277 



Infant, Wisdom of thy Father, "] 

Infant, the integrity of thy Mother, te! 

Infant, the only-begotten of thy Father, g 
Infant, the first-born of thy Mother, § 

Infant, the image of thy Father, y ^ 

Infant, the origin of thy Mother, ^ 

Infant, the brightness of thy Father, § 
Infant, the honor of thy Mother, g 

Infant, equal to thy Father, &.C., &:c." J 

Passing by the senseless repetitions which so remarkably 
characterize the prayers of Rome, we may with propriety enquire, 
what is the sense and propriety of addressing a prayer to the 
infant Jesus, when he has long ceased to be an infant? But it is 
useless to ask a reason. The Roman clergy regard themselves 
as fully authorized to exercise ad libitum their inventive powers in 
the worship of God, without feeling at all bound to give a reason 
for what they do ! 

4. Among the means of grace invented by the clergy we 
find holy ashes, holy palm, holy fire, holy water, holy medals, 
holy ground, &lc. Let us look a little more particularly into these 
things. There is a certain day which the clergy have named 
Ash' Wednesday^ on which they sanctify ashes and put them on 
the heads of their followers. The Roman Missal informs us, 
that '• The ceremony of applying ashes, in the form of a cross, to 
the heads of the faithful on this day, is a relic of the ancient dis- 
cipline of the Church, which at the beginning of Lent, subjected 
public and scandalous sinners to public and canonical penance." 
They seem to have so far improved upon the ancient discipline, 
that they now put the ashes on the heads, not of scandalous sin- 
ners only, but of all the faithful. The ashes, it seems, are intend- 
ed to be a sign of penitence. " We are therefore to perform this 
holy ceremony wuth an humble and contrite soul, with a firm 
resolution of entering upon penitential practices in order to punish 
'our sins, and to satisfy for them in a manner that may bear some 
proportion to the enormity of our offenses." We do read of those 
in olden times who repented is sack- cloth and ashes ; but, not 
knowing how to make holy ashesj they were constrained to place 



278 ROxMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

common ashes on their heads, if they used the article at all. 
And when men put on sackcloth, and put ashes on their heads, 
the occasion was one of great distress ; but now it is a thing 
which is to be done on a certain day, whether there be any extra- 
ordinary sorrow or not. But how do the ashes become holy ? 
The Roman Missal contains the prayer offered by the priest on 
the occasion, during which he, two or three times, makes the sign 
of the cross in the ashes. It is as follows : 

" O Almighty and Eternal God, spare those that repent, show 
mercy to those that humbly entreat thee : and vouchsafe to send 
from heaven thy holy angel, to -\- bless, and -f- sanctify these 
ashes, that they may be a wholesome remedy to all who humbly 
call upon thy holy name, and conscious of their sins, accuse 
themselves, and deplore their crimes in sight of thy Divine Majes- 
ty, or humbly and earnestly have recourse to thy sovereign bounty : 
and grant, by our calling upon thy most holy name, that whoever 
shall be touched by these ashes for the remission of their sins, 
may receive health of body and defense of soul." 

Again — " O God, who desirest the conversion, and not the 
death of sinners, graciously consider the weakness of human 
nature and mercifully vouchsafe to -|- bless these ashes, which 
we design to receive on our heads, in token of our humiliation 
and to obtain forgiveness," ^c. 

After some other prayers, the priest, having sprinkled the ashes 
with holy water, repeating an anthem, and fuming them three 
times, places them on his own head, and on the heads of the 
people.* 

There is a certain Sunday in the year, called by the Roman- 
ists Palm-Sunday. ''It is so called," says the Missal, "from the 
ceremony of blessing branches of ^alms.^ olives, or some other 
tree, to be distributed among the faithful to carry in procession, 
in remembrance of what the Jewish people did, when Jesus 
Christ, six days before his passion, made his triumphant entry 
into Jerusalem, riding on an ass' colt, as had been foretold by the 
Prophet," &c. The Jewish people were under the necessity of 
* Rom. Missal, pp. 113-115. 



BLESSING OF TREES. 279 

using the palm in its natural state ; but the Roman clergy, it ap- 
pears, have found means of rendering it quite holy, of having im- 
parted to it some v^onderful virtues. 

" After sprinkling the holy water, as usual on other Sundays, 
the office begins," as we learn from the Missal, with an anthem. 
After some other ceremonies the following prayer is offered: 
" We beseech thee, O Holy Lord, Almighty Father, Eternal God, 
that thou wouldst be pleased to -|- bless and -j- sanctify this 
creature of the olive tree, which thou madest to shoot out of the 
substance of the wood, and which the dove, returning to the ark^ 
brought in its bill : that whoever receiveth it may find protection of 
soul and body; and that it may prove, O Lord, a saving remedy, 
and a sacred sign of thy grace." Again, " O God, who gather- 
est what is dispersed, and preservest what is gathered ; who didst 
bless the people that carried boughs to meet Jesus, bless -[- also 
these branches of the palm tree and olive tree, which thy ser- 
vants take with faith in honor of thy name ; that unto whatever 
place they may be carried, the inhabitants of that place may ob- 
tain thy blessing ; and thy right hand preserve from all adversity 
and protect those that have been redeemed by our Lord Jesus 
Christ, thy Son." 

x\fter some other prayers the priest sprinkles the palms with 
holy water, with certain other ceremonies, fuming them thrice 
with incense. The palms being now holy, and possessing, of 
course, wonderful efficacy to preserve the body from storms and 
other dangers, and the soul from the power of Satan, they " are 
distributed to the people kneeling and kissing them as well as the 
priest's hand." During the distribution certain anthems are sung, 
after which the procession is formed, and they go forth chanting 
anthems. When the procession returns to the church, other 
ceremonies 1 need not detain you to mention, are performed, and 
the deluded people bear to their houses the precious treasure — the 
blessed palm!* 

One might be induced to imagine, that there was never on 
earth a class of men so holy as the Roman clergy ; for they con- 

* Roman Missal, pp. 230-237. 



280 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 



secrate almost everything. Even the fire with which they burn 
incense, and the candles they burn in their churches, are made 
holy. In blessing the fire^ the following prayer is offered, ac- 
companied, of course, with the sign of the cross '^ O God, who 
by thy only Son, the chief corner stone of thy church, hast be- 
stowed on the faithful the fire of thy divine love: bless -\- this 
new fire produced from a flint for our use, and grant that during 
this paschal solemnity we may be so influenced with heavenly 
desires, that with purity of mind we may come to these festivals, 
where we may enjoy a light which will never end." With simi- 
lar ceremonies, too long now to be read, the incense and the can- 
dles are blessed, so as to give, of course, a holy light, and impart 
purity to all concerned!* 

You will have noticed, in the passages I have read from the 
Missal, that holy ivater is a thing in constant use. The Cate- 
chism of Trent informs us that " when the Lord was baptized, 
water was consecrated to the salutary use of baptism," and that 
he endowed it with a divine and wonderful virtue ; but yet it was 
not holy enough for the priesthood, nor did it possess sufficient 
virtue. They, therefore, undertake to add to its purity and its di- 
vine virtue ! " In the first place, then," says the Catechism, " the 
water to be used in baptism should be previously prepared : the 
baptismal water is consecrated with oil of mystic unction ; and 
this cannot be done at all times, but according to ancient usage, on 
the vigils of certain festivals, which are justly deemed the great- 
est and most holy solemnities in the year, and on which alone, 
except in cases of necessity, it was the practice of the ancient 
church to administer baptism," f What the particular ceremo- 
nies in making holy water are, we need not stay to inquire. Af- 
ter quite a number of ceremonies, the priest divides the water in 
the form of a cross, prays that a regenerating, sanctifying virtue 
may be imparted to it, touches the water with his hand, still pray- 
ing ; he then makes the sign of the cross three times over the 
font, saying, '' Wherefore I bless thee, O creature of water, by 
the living + God, by the true -f- God, by the holy -|- God, by 

* Roman Missal, pp, 300-303. f Catechism of Trent, pp. 118-133. 



CEREMONY OF BAPTISM. 281 

that God who in the beginning separated thee from the dry land, 
and whose Spirit moved upon thee." Here he divides the w^ater 
with his hand, and throws some of it toward the four quarters of 
the world, and then continues praying and crossing the water. 
Thus, we are expected to believe, it has a virtue it possessed not 
before. It is kept in the churches, and the people are, from Sab- 
bath to Sabbath, sprinkled with it ; and those who are baptized 
are believed to have become pure as an angel. 

In connection with the holy water, it may be well to notice 
some of the many corruptions of the sacrament of baptism which 
the Roman clergy have invented. Of these we have an account 
in the Catechism of Trent. 1st. " The person baptized is brought 
or conducted to the door of the church, and is forbidden to enter, 
as unworthy to be admitted into the house of God, until he has 
cast off the yoke of the most degrading servitude of Satan, de- 
voted himself unreservedly to Christ, and pledged his fidelity to 
the just sovereignty of the Lord Jesus." The priest asks him 
what he demands of the church, and having received the answer, 
proceeds to instruct him catechetically. 

2d. Then comes the exorcism. " It consists of words of sacred 
and religious import, and of prayers ; and is used to expel the 
devil and crush his power." The Roman clergy seem to proceed 
upon the assumption that every human being is actually possessed 
of the devil, and that this is the fact even when they come with 
sincere faith and repentance to receive the ordinance of baptism ! 
And therefore they go about to expel him by the charm of cer- 
tain words and ceremonies, far more resembling witchcraft than 
Christianity. If the devil can feel amused, he is doubtless often 
provoked to smile at the senseless mummery by which the Ro- 
man clergy seek to frighten him. 

3d. In connection with exorcism, or immediately after it, salt is 
put in the mouth of the candidate for baptism. His forehead, eyes, 
breast, shoulders, and ears are signed with the sign of the cross. 
Then his nostrils and ears are touched w4th spittle, and he is ad- 
mitted to the baptismal font. Then he is interrogated, " Dost 
thou renounce Satan? — and all his works? — and all his pomps?" 
12* 



282 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

To each of which questions he or his sponsor gives an affirmative 
answer. Then he is " anointed with the oil of catechumens on the 
breast and between the shoulders." Then he makes his profession 
of faith, and receives baptism, administered, not with pure water, 
but with water mixed with oil, which the clergy call holy water. 
The priest, after administering baptism, anoints with chrism the 
crown of his head, puts a white garment on him, and a burning 
light in his hand. Finally, the name of some saint is given him, 
whose virtues, it is expected, he will imitate.* 

The Apostles, we are informed by Luke the Evangelist, bap- 
tized three thousand persons on the day of Pentecost. Suppose 
they had waited to make holy water, and then had gone through 
all these ceremonies, what number, suppose ye, they could have 
baptized ? And was there anything defective in the baptism ad- 
ministered by them ? Was it of less efficacy than that admin- 
istered by the Roman clergy? If it was not (and they will 
scarcely venture to say it was), then it is perfectly clear that all 
these additions, to say the very least, are perfectly worthless. 
And by what authority do they thus cumber the ordinances of 
Christ with their inventions? Was the water used by the Apos- 
tles as efficacious as the holy water of the priests ? Will they 
dare say it was not? But if it was, then all their pretensions to 
making water holy, by invoking the awful name of the Trinity, 
are false and deceptive. Was the devil as fully expelled from 
those baptized by the Apostles, as from those now baptized by the 
Roman clergy? Will they deny that he was? If he was, then 
their exorcism is a deception practiced upon the ignorant, and an 
impious appeal to God for nothing. The whole of these corrup- 
tions of the sacred ordinance divert the attention of those bap- 
tized, from the truth, and cause them to rely upon human inven- 
tions for salvation. 

I have mentioned the blessing of the candles burned in the 

churches. The clergy also make "holy candles for the people. 

This is done on the festival of the " Purification of the Blessed 

Virgin Mary;" " By the distribution of the blessed candles, the 

* Catechism of Trent. 



BLESSING OF CANDLES. 283 

faithful are exhorted to be as piously disposed as holy Simeon 
was when he took Christ in his arms, &c. Let us therefore 
receive the candles from the hands of the priest with a becoming 
piety, as an emblem of Christ, who is the light of our souls," &c. 
This festival, it is not pretended, is of Apostolic institution. The 
Missal says, it must have been of an early date, "since we find 
mention made of it in the fifth century." 

In blessing the candles the priest prays, " We humbly beseech 
thee, by the invocation of thy most holy name, and by the inter- 
cession of Blessed Mary, ever a virgin, whose festival we this day 
devoutly celebrate, and by the prayers of all thy saints, vouch- 
safe to bless -|- and sanctify -{- these candles, for the service of 
men, and for the good of their bodies and souls in all places," &c. 
Having gone through the prescribed ceremonies, the priest, 
sprinkling the candles with holy water, and fuming them, " dis- 
tributes them to the faithful, who receive them kneeling, first 
kissing the candle, and then the hand of the priest." * These 
most precious treasures are carried home, and sacredly preserved 
by the faithful, who light them when dangers threaten, a storm 
is rising, and on similar occasions ; for they are to be " for the 
good of their bodies and souls in all places." 

There are holy medals^ too, prepared by the clergy, and sold to 
the faithful, who wear them around their necks, and place them 
around the necks of their children, to protect them from diseases 
and other dangers, or to cure them when sick. I have one of 
these precious articles, a great number of which is said to have 
recently passed through the custom-house in New York, for 
the benefit of the faithful. It has suitable inscriptions upon it, 
which I am not able to decipher ; but no matter, its virtues de- 
pend not on the ability of the possessor to read them. 

One of the most remarkable inventions of the pope, and, if the 
truth is told about it, one of the most valuable discoveries of 
any age, is the Agnus Dei. The following is an authentic his- 
tory of it, together with an enumeration of its wonderful virtues : 

* Roman Missal, pp. 549-552. 



284 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

" Of Agnus Deis. 

''An Agnus Dei is a little cake made of Virgin wax and blessed 
by the Pope on the first Low Sunday after his inauguration, and 
afterwards every seventh year on the same day. The ceremonies 
used by the Sovereign Pontiff on this occasion are of great anti- 
quity in the Church. Mention is made of them in the Roman 
Order^ which, in the judgment of the learned, is anterior to the 
eighth century. The Ceremonial of the Church of Rome pre- 
scribes the matter, the form and prayers of this consecration ; and 
even explains their mystical signiiS cations. 

" These Agnus Deis are made of the whitest and purest virgin 
wax, a symbol of the human nature which the Son of God was 
pleased to assume by the operation of the Holy Ghost in the 
chaste womb of the most holy Virgin. On the wax is impressed 
the image of the spotless Lamb of God, immolated for us on the 
Altar of the Cross. Holy w^ater is used, because with that ele- 
ment God, both in the Old and New Testament, has wrought ver}^ 
great prodigies, and it is the matter of the Sacrament of our re- 
generation. Balsam is also used, to signify that Christians in all 
their words and actions ought to be the good odor of Jesus 
Christ. Lastly, use is made of the chrism, with which the 
church consecrates all the things which are especially destined 
to the divine worship, as churches, altars, priests, &c. Chrism, 
is also an emblem of charity, the most sublime of virtues. 

" The Sovereign Pontiff dips these wax-cakes in the water which 
he has previously blessed, and into which he has poured and 
mixed the balsam and holy chrism. Before and after the im- 
mersions he addresses to God his prayers, beseeching him to 
bless, sanctify, and consecrate this wax, and to pour upon it such 
virtue as to enable those who will use it piously, and preserve 
it with devotion and faith, to obtain the following graces : 

" 1.. That seeing and touching with faith the image of the Lamb 
impressed on the wax, they may be excited by these exterior sym- 
bols to a remembrance of the mysteries of our redemption : to 
sentiments of adoration, gratitude and love, for the infinite good- 
ness of God towards men ; and to a firm hope and confidence 



fe 



VIRTUES OF THE AGNUS DEI. 285 

that through the divine mercy their sins shall be forgiven, and 
their souls cleansed from all the defilements of sin. 

^' 2. That at the sight of the sign of the Cross impressed on this 
blessed wax, the evil Spirits, seized with fright, may fly away from 
the servants of God ; and that by virtue of the same, they may be 
protected against storms, wind, hail, whirlwinds, and lightning. 

" 3. That by an effect of this divine benediction, we may be en- 
abled to discover the artifices of Satan, to resist his suggestions, 
and to avoid his snares. 

" 4. That the same blessing may procure to pregnant women a 
happy deliverance and the preservation of their fruit. 

" 5. That those who wall make a pious use of those Agnus 
Deis: maybe protected from adversity, pestilence, the corruption 
of the air, the falling sickness, shipwreck, fire, inundations, and 
all malignant influence. 

" 6. That in prosperity as well as in adversity, we may be de- 
fended by the divine power against all the snares of men and 
devils, that we may be preserved from a sudden and unprovided 
death, and from all dangers, through the mysteries of the life and 
passion of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

"A great number of miracles have placed it beyond all doubt, 
that the Author of all good gifts pours his graces and favors on 
faithful souls, by the means of these wax images of the divine 
Lamb; as an effect of the blessing of the Sovereign Pontiff, 
Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, and of the prayers which he offers 
to God in the name of the whole Church. If, therefore, those 
who carry about them an Agnus Dei^ do not always obtain the 
effects of these prayers, they must ascribe it only to their want of 
faith, or their ill directed devotion. God may also have in his 
adorable heart secret reasons not to hear our prayers. It is often 
for his glory and our salvation, that he refuses to grant our 
request. 

" Translated from the original of the Apostolical chamber 'print- 
ing q^c6."* 

Verily, if this whole affair is not one of the "lying wonders" 

* True Piety, pp. 438-440. 



286 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

of which Paul spoke, everybody ought to buy an Agnus Dei ! 
It is infinitely better than life-preservers, life-insurances, and all 
the plans adopted by unbelieving men to protect themselves and 
their families from dangers. And besides all its temporal advan- 
tages, it scares the devil and his legions so badly that they fly away 
from the servants of God. James the Apostles said to believers, 
"Resist the devil, and he will flee from thee ;" but he evidently 
knew nothing of this happy device of the pope. Peter had not 
invented the little wax Agnus Deis. But there is no telling what 
a number of happy discoveries have been made in matters 
religious, since the Apostles fell asleep. Roman Catholics are 
furnished with hundreds of means of grace, of which those holy 
men never dreamed. But there is nothing of which v/e have yet 
heard, that, in the blessings it confers and the evils from which it 
protects men, equals the Agnus Dei ! This account of it, too, 
comes from head-quarters — it is translated from the original of the 
Apostolical Chamber printing ofRce, and the truth of it has been 
proved by a great number of miracles ! Truly the pope, if he 
can only induce men to believe all this, may carry on a brisk 
trade in the article ! 

I pass without particular notice the consecration of burial 
grounds, that the bodies of the dead may lie in holy ground ; the 
baptism of bells, that there may be religious efficacy in their 
sound ; the numerous funeral ceremonies, &c., <fec., and direct 
your attention to one of the most disgusting and impious customs 
of which history gives any account. As St. Blase is the patron 
saint of the wool-combers, so St. Anthony, it seems, has taken 
charge of horses, asses, mules, &c. The festival of this saint is 
observed annually on the 17th of January, when the good people 
of Rome and vicinity send their horses to the convent of St. An- 
thony, in Rome, to be blessed by the priest, and secure for the 
year the protection of the saint " The priest," says a late writer, 
" in his sacerdotal garments, stands at the church door, with a 
large sprinkling brush in his hand, and as each animal is presented 
to him, he takes off his skull cap, mutters a few words in Latin, 
intimating that through the merits of the blessed St. Anthony, they 



BLESSING OF HORSES, MULES, &C. . 287 

are to be preserved the coming year from sickness and death, 
famine and danger, then dips his brush in a huge bucket of holy 
water that stands by him, and sprinkles them in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The priest re- 
ceives a fee for sprinkling each animal, and Dr. Middleton 
remarks that among the rest he had his own horses blessed at 
the expense of about eighteen pence, as well to satisfy his own 
curiosity, as to humor his coachman ; who was persuaded, as the 
common people generally are, that some mischance would befall 
them within the year, if they wanted the benefit of this benediction. 
He adds, a revenue is thus provided sufficient for the mainte- 
nance of forty or fifty of the lazy drones called monks."* 

This impious custom, in which the name of the adorable Trin- 
ity is awfully profaned, and religion exposed to ridicule and 
contempt, in the metropolis of Popery, and under the eye of the 
Pope himself, was exposed by Rev. Dr. Breckenridge in his con- 
troversy with Bishop Hughes. What was his reply ? Did he 
condemn this disgusting profanation of things most sacred ? No 
he replied thus : " But then in Rome, there is one day in the year 
( not to speak of kissing the pontifical slipper) ' for blessing horses, 
asses, and other beasts.' In answer to this I have only to say, 
that on 710 day in the year would a minister of the Gospel refuse, 
if respectfully invited^ to perform a similar operation, over a piece 
of good beef, such as may always be found in our Philadelphia 
market. I see no difiierence, except that in this case the ^ beast' 
happens to be dead; and that the maxim has it, ^ nil nisi bonum 
de mortuis,'' "t Few would have believed that a custom too dark 
for even the dark ages would have been thus defended by an 
American bishop ! Still fewer would have thought it possible that 
any sendble man, however devoid of religious feeling, would con- 
fess that he could see no difference between this and the practice 
sanctioned by our Lord himself, of offering thanks to God for our 
daily bread ! But so it is. The Romish clergy of America feel 
constrained to defend such abominations committed in Rome, 
either because they must otherwise abandon the claim of infalli- 

* Dowling's Hist, of Romanism, p. 117. f No. v, p. 40. 



288 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

bility which they set up for their church, or because they dread 
the displeasure of their lord the pope ! 

Among the inventions by which the Roman clergy maintain 
their influence, we may mention the wonderful stories related of 
many of their saints. They claim for their church the power of 
working miracles, and to the miracles alleged to have been wrought 
they often appeal, as proof conclusive, that theirs is the only true 
church. I will give a brief account of a few of them, that the 
audience may judge of their true character. 

In the Breviary, a book approved by the pope and his clergy, 
which in preceding lectures I have had occasion to quote, it is 
related of St. Philip Nerius, that "wounded by the love of God, 
he languished continually, and his heart burned with so great 
fervor, that when it could no longer be contained within its limits, 
the Lord enlarged his bosom in a wonderful manner, two of his 
ribs having been broken and elevated. But performing sacred 
rites, or praying more fervently, sometimes raised in the air, he 
appeared to shine on every side with a wonderful light. He per- 
formed for the poor every office of charity ; he was deemed 
worthy to bestow alms upon an angel under the form of a poor 
man ; and having fallen into a pit, whilst carrying bread to the 
poor by night, he was taken out unhurt by an angel. * * * * 
He was rendered illustrious by the gift of prophecy, and wonder- 
fully excelled in discerning spirits. He always preserved his 
virginity inviolate, and attained to such a degree of purity that 
he could distinguish those who preserved their chastity, by their 
pleasant odor, and those of a contrary character, by their filthy 
smell." Festa Mail, Dei xxvi. 

Another miracle, no less edifying than these, is related of St. 
John, one of the popes. It is as follows : "John, the Etruscan, 
governed the church during the reign of Justin the elder : to 
whom he went on a visit to Constantinople for the purpose of 
obtaining aid, because Theodoric a heretical king, was disturbing 
Italy ; which journey God rendered illustrious by miracles. For 
when a certain nobleman had loaned him a horse for the journey to 
Corinth, which on account of his being very gentle his wife w^^ 



MIRACLE OF PETER'S CHAINS. 289 

accustomed to ride, it came to pass, that when afterwards the 
horse was sent back to his owner, he became so fierce, that with 
neighing and the agitation of his whole body, he ever afterward 
threw his mistress ; as if he deemed it an indignity to carry a 
woman after the Vicar of Christ had sat upon him. Wherefore 
they made a present of the horse to the Pontiff." Die xxvii Maii. 
The Breviary concludes the life of the Pontiff, who was impris- 
oned by Theodoric the Goth until he died, by stating, that a 
certain monk saw the soul of Theodoric carried to hell by Pope 
John and Symmachus, through one of the volcanoes of the Lipari 
Islands ! — and for the truth of this story the Breviary appeals to 
the testimoney of St. Gregory, one of the popes ! * 

Among the miracles of which the Breviary gives an account, 
one of the most remarkable is that concerning Peter's chains. 
It is as follows: "During the reign of Theodosius the younger, 
when Eudocia his v/ife had visited Jerusalem for the sake of 
fulfilling a vow, she was there favored with many presents : above 
all others she received the illustrious gift of an iron chain^ adorned 
with gold and gems, which they declared was the same with 
which the Apostle Peter had been bound by Herod. Eudocia 
piously venerating the chain, afterwards sent it to Rome to her 
daughter Eudoxia. who brought it to the Pontiff: and he in turn 
showed her another chain with which, under the reign of Nero, 
the same Apostle had been bound. Whilst, therefore, the Pontiff 
was comparing the Roman chain with that which had been brought 
&om Jerusalem, it happened that they became so united tog-ether, 
that there appeared to be not two chains, but one made by the 
same workman." In consequence of which miracle so great 
honor began to be given to those sacred chains, that a church 
under the name of St. Peter ad Vincula, was erected and dedicated 
in Rome. By these chains, of course, many miracles have been 
wrought. By their touch, we are assured, devils are expelled 

* Paulo post moritur Theodoricus, quern quidam eremita, ut scribit 
Sanctus Gregorious, vidit inter Joannem Pontificem, et Symmaclium Pat- 
ricium, quern idem occiderat, demergi in ignem Liparitanum, ut videlicet 
illi, quibus mortem attulerat, tanquam judices essent ejus interitus. 
13 



^90 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

from those possessed, and diseases are instantly cured. The first 
day of August has been appointed as a festival in commemoration 
of the miracle of Peter's chains ! 

I have stated the fact that the Roman clergy profess to have 
among their relics the body of Stephen, the first Christian mar- 
tyr. I was much at a loss to know how they found it, since it 
was buried immediately after his death, and nothing was said con- 
cerning the place where it lay. In looking over the Breviary, I 
obtained some light on this subject. It states that the bodies of 
St. Stephen the protomartyr, of Gamaliel, of Nicodemus, and of 
Abibon, which had for a long time lain in an obscure and filthy 
place, were discovered by divine direction to a Presbyter named 
Lucian, during the reign of the Emperor Honorius, near Jerusa- 
lem. Gamaliel appeared to him in a dream, in the form of a 
grave and noble old man, told him where the bodies lay, and 
bade him go to John, a priest of Jerusalem, and by his assistance 
to secure for their bodies a more suitable burial. Which things 
being heard, the clergy af the whole region round about were call- 
ed together, and conducted to the place. They found the places 
opened, from which the sweetest odor was sent forth. The fame 
of this wonderful discovery spread rapidly ; a multitude of peo- 
ple assembled from all directions ; the sick were healed, and re- 
turned to their homes ; and the sacred relic was taken and placed 
in a church at Constantinople^ and afterwards, by order of the 
pope was carried to Rome ! Such is the story gravely told in 
the Breviary ; and the church celebrates the discovery of the body 
of Stephen, on the third day of August. 

A miracle still more wonderful than any I have yet mentioned, 
is the translation of the house of Loretto, The Breviary states, 
as an undoubted fact, that it was removed by the ministry of an- 
gels from Palestine from the power of infidels, first to Dalmatia, 
afterwards across the Adriatic. ITiere can be no mistake, it 
seems, that it is the identical house ; for, says the Breviary, 
" that it is the same in which the Word was made flesh and dwelt 
among us, is proved as well by the Pontifical edicts or proclama- 
tions (diplomatibus), and by the most celebrated veneration of the 



k 



ARE THESE MIRACLES CREDITABLE. 291 

whole world, as by the continual virtue of miracles, and the grace 
of heavenly benefits."* This miracle, like others of the same 
class, is celebrated by an annual festival. 

It is related of St. Januarius, that his body on one occasion ex- 
tinguished the flames of Vesuvius. " In primis memorandum 
quod erumpentes olim e monte Vesuvio flammarum globos, nee 
vicinis modo, sed longinquis etiam regionibus vastitatis metum 
afFerentes, extinxit." His blood, too, which usually exists in a 
coagulated state, the Breviary tells us, " when it is placed in view 
of the martyr's head, becomes liquified in a wonderful manner, 
and boils, as if it had recently been shed." This miracle which 
the Breviary calls " praeclarum illud " — that noble miracle — is 
now annually witnessed, we are told, in Naples ! 

The Breviary is full of just such stories as these, all of which 
are declared to be confirmed by miracles, and are celebrated in 
the festivals of the church. 

We cannot j udge the hearts of men ; but we are constantly 
tempted to ask, do the clergy themselves believe one half of these 
things ? Do they really believe that their holy ashes, blessed 
palm, holy water, and the like, possess any virtue to benefit 
either soul or body ? Do they believe, that by their medals, 
Agnus Dei's, and such things, God has wrought, and does now 
work, the wonderful cures of which they testify? Can they 
really believe that the priest who, in his robes, sprinkles the 
horses, asses, and mules of the people of Rome with holy water, 
in the awful name of the Trinity, is not guilty of prostituting re- 
ligion in the most shameful manner ? Can any man of common 
sense believe that St. Philip had so much religion that it broke 
two of his ribs ? Is it possible to believe the story about the mi- 
raculous translation of the house of Loretto? Or that about 
Peter's chains, or St. Januarius' blood ? Can it be that the 
Roman clergy of these United States do really swallow all the 

* Eademque ipsam esse in qua Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in 
nobis turn Pontificis diplomatibus, et celeberrima totius orbis veneratione, 
turn continue miraculorum virtute, et coelestium beneficiorum gratia 
comprobatur. 



292 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

trash of this kind which they daily peruse in their Breviary ? 
I can scarcely believe it possible. 

But what are we to think of that church which is literally load- 
ed with human inventions, grossly corrupting the Word of God ? 
whose ministers constrain their followers to offer prayers to which 
we find nothing analogous in the Word of God ; invoke the name 
of God to bless ashes, water, candles, medals, and the like, and 
teach their people to rely for blessings temporal and spiritual 
upon such incantations ? What should we think of their corrup- 
tion of the ordinance of baptism — their salt, and spittle, and oil, 
and candles, and exorcisms ? What shall we think of the " lying 
wonders " which fill the pages of the Breviary, and by which the 
ignorant and superstitious are constantly deluded, and induced to 
rely upon them as a means of salvation ? Can such a church be 
regarded otherwise than as apostate ? If Rome were suddenly 
divested of all these miserable corruptions, would not her iden- 
tity be lost ? Would her own children be able to recognize her ? 
Surely we need no longer wonder at the immorality that prevails 
in all Roman countries. Nothing but Christianity in some good 
degree of purity, can sustain sound morals. As I before remark- 
ed, just in the proportion that the Jewish teachers multiplied ordi- 
nances and ceremonies which God had not authorized, did they 
disregard the claims of true religion and sound morality. In pro- 
portion to their zeal in cleansing the outside of the cup and the 
platter, was their neglect of the inside. So it has been with 
Rome. Long has the attention of her clergy and people been 
turned away from the great doctrines of the cross, to the inven- 
tions of man ; which, though they make a great show of sanctity 
have no power to sanctify. 



THE TRUE CHURCH. 293 



LECTURE XI. 

Eph. V, 25. " Even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it." 

It is perfectly evident, from this and similar language of the 
inspired writers, that Jesus Christ our Saviour has hut one church. 
There are small bodies called churches, which are branches or 
parts of " the church which is his body," but in the general sense 
of the word he has but one church. That church he " loved and 
gave hiniself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with 
the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to him- 
self a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such 
thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish." It is to 
him as the apple of his eye. It is " the bride, the Lamb's wife." 
He is head over all things to his church ; and to it he will secure 
a glorious triumph over all the powers of darkness. 

We all desire to be in communion with the true and only 
church of Christ, that we may enjoy her rich blessings, and 
share in her glorious triumphs. If we have the spirit of Christ, 
we would gladly participate in her self-denial, her trials, and her 
conflicts in her militant state ; and when the Bridegroom shall 
come, we would be ^^ arrayed in fine linen, clean and white," and 
Avould be ^^ called into the marriage supper of the Lamb." But 
how shall we find the church? By what means shall we be 
able to distinguish her from those churches which falsely claim 
to be Christ's ? It surely cannot be very difficult to discern it, for 
it is " the light of the world," and is like unto a city set on a hill. 
But it is certain that many have been, and many are now, de- 
ceived, and have placed themselves under the instruction of false 
teachers, and in communion with churches that are " synagogues 
of Satan." We, too, may be deceived. Let us, therefore, pro- 



294 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

eeed cautiously. The true church, we know, differs widely from 
all others ; but we must have a certain rule by which to distin- 
guish it from them. What is that -rule? 

1. It is not tradition; for, as we had occasion to prove m the 
first lecture of this series, if there be unwritten traditions of 
divine authority, they are exclusively in the keeping of the 
church ; and therefore we can know nothing about them until we 
find it. 

2. We cannot rely, in this investigation, upon uninspired eccle- 
siastical history^ nor upon any writings of uninspired men. The 
history of the church has been imperfectly written ; and the earlier 
part of it has been written by men who lived long afier the events 
transpired which are recorded, and who were but scantily fur- 
nished with materials out of which to write it. The persecutions 
w^hich raged against Christianity, during the earlier ages, de- 
stroyed most of the documents which might have thrown light on 
the history of the church ; and even those that have come down 
to us through the dark ages are not entirely uncorrupted. Learn- 
ed men, moreover, differ widely concerning many important his- 
torical facts. Some of the most learned cannot find a pope, the 
supreme visible head of the church, for several centuries after the 
death of Christ ; w^hilst others profess to give a complete cata- 
logue of popes up to Peter himself! Even Roman Catholic his- 
torians differ very materially from each other. Bishop Purcell, 
of Cincinnati, rejects Dupin's Ecclesiastical History, though it 
was approved by the famous Popish Doctors o^f the Sorbonne, in 
France. He says — " The authority of Du Pin I have challenged 
on just grounds." * And Rev. Joseph Reeve denounces, in no 
very measured terms, the history written by the celebrated Abbe 
Fleury. He says — " Under the modest declaration of writing 
purely to edify, he passes the most insulting censures upon the 
highest authorities, when adverse to his own private system, and 
peremptorily pronounces almost everything wrong in point of dis- 
cipline, which has not the practice of w^ise antiquity for its sanc- 
tion. As if no change of times and circumstances can ever 

* Campbell and PurcelPs Debate, pp. 32, 33. 



THE TRUE CHURCH. , 295 

authorize a change of discipline for the spiritual benefit of the 
faithful, and for the encouragement of virtue," &C.* 

Plain men of moderate education cannot enter into these his- 
torical controversies, and examine all the records of antiquity, in 
order to determine v/hat is true and what false ; and even of the 
most learned few have leisure for such investigations. Few, in- 
deed, can read the ponderous folios of those called Fathers, even 
if such reading would certainly guide them to the truth, which it 
would not. 

There must be some means by which all sincere inquirers 
after truth, even the unlearned, can find the true church. It will 
answer no good purpose for Roman writers to give a catalogue 
of all the popes, up to the days of the Apostles; for men equally 
learned, and no less interested in ascertaining and teaching the 
truth, do affirm that true history furnishes no such catalogue, nor 
any such system of doctrines and worship as those of Rome ; 
and, as already remarked, very few indeed can ever examine the 
historical questions involved in the controversy. By what means, 
then, can th€ people find the true church? 

It throws no light upon the subject to ask, as do Roman con- 
trovertists, where were the Protestant churches before the days 
of Luther, and Calvin, and Knox, and Cranrner ? For it is easy 
to reply — 1st. That those eminent men were only instruments in 
the hands of God in purging the church of those errors and 
superstitious practices into which she had fallen. 2d. That long 
before they lived there were many, very many, in every age, who 
held the doctrines of the Reformation, and protested loudly 
against the accumulating errors of Rome. 3d. That the same 
objection, substantially, was urged by the Jewish teachers, the 
Scribes and Pharisees, against Christ and his Apostles. They 
said, '^ We are Moses' disciples. We know that God spake unto 
Moses : as for this fellow, we know not whence he is." t 

Nor will it be of any service to the cause of Rome for her 
clergy to blacken the character of the Reformers, the Waldenses, 
and others claimed by Protestants as witnesses for the truth. For, 

* Pref. to Ch. Hist., p. xv. f John ix, 28-29. 



296 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

in the first place, men as learned as they, and quite as impartial, 
and every way as worthy of credit, deny the truth of the charges^ 
and pronounce them slanderous. In the second place, we have 
the writings of those men, and the creeds they drew up, and they 
refute all such slanders. And, in the third place, we see the 
fruits of their labors, and they are good — good in their effects 
upon the liberties and upon the morals of men. 

Nor is it worth while for Roman writers to say, that if Luther, 
Calvin, and Knox had been true Reformers, they would have been 
enabled to confirm their mission by miracles. This would be a 
valid objection, if they had proposed to establish a new system of 
religion, or to add new articles of faith, or new ordinances to those 
already received. But they proposed nothing of the kind. They 
simply called on men to believe and obey the Scriptures, admitted 
to be the word of God, and to reject every thing contrary to them. 
Ezrah and Nehemiah were great Reformers, as even Romanists 
must admit; and yet they wrought no miracles. Why? Be- 
cause they did not propose any new articles of faith, nor institute 
any new ordinances, but only urged the church to abandon her 
errors and corruptions, for which she had been in exile during 
seventy years. John the Baptist was a great Reformer \ but he 
wrought no miracles. Why ? Because he added nothing to the 
inspired Scriptures, and instituted no new ordinances, but only 
lifted up his voice in the wilderness, and called upon the people 
to abandon the errors into which the corrupt teachers had led 
them, and to prepare to receive "him of whom Moses in the Law 
and the Prophets did write." When Christ came he wrought 
miracles, and so did his Apostles. Why? Because He claimed 
to be the Messiah, and must prove his claims well founded ; and 
they proposed to place the church under a new dispensation, to 
appoint a new order of ministers, and new ordinances. The Re- 
formers of the sixteenth century did nothing more than Hilkiah 
the Priest, who found the Book of the Law among the rubbish 
in the Temple, and called public attention to the contents of that 
blessed volume; than Ezra and Nehemiah, who expounded it 
to the people. There was, therefore, no reason why they should 



k 



THE TRUE CHURCH. 297 

work miracles. They appealed simply to the Scriptures in sup- 
port of the principles of the Reformation, and the only question 
of importance, is, whether the Scriptures sustained them. 

The question returns — how shall we distinguish the true 
church from all others ? Tradition will not aid us. Uninspired 
history cannot settle the question. And the objections urged by 
Roman writers against Protestant churches, are not valid. But is 
there any rule which is infallible, and by which we can safely 
test the claims of every church ? All agree that there is. What 
is that rule? It is the Bible. All who have any claim to the 
name of Christians, hold, that it is given by inspiration of God. 
Here, then, we have something on which we can rely. Men 
may have misinterpreted and perverted its language ; but if God 
has undertaken to teach us, we can understand him. If he has 
given us a rule by which to discover the true church, we may 
safely use it, and rest satisfied with the result. 

The Bible gives us an account of the church under the Old 
Dispensation, and of its organization under the New. It is 
under the New Dispensation that we wish now to contemplate it. 
Let us, then, with this sacred volume in our hands, and the fear 
of God in our hearts, look for the true church. What are its dis- 
tinguishing marks ? 

I. Let us first enquire into the organization of the church of 
Christ. What officers had she? 1st, There were Apostles^ in- 
spired men, appointed by our Saviour to introduce the New Dis- 
pensation, to be witnesses of all things they had seen our Saviour 
do, and heard him teach, and of his resurrection, and to organize 
the church as it should continue till time should end. " And ye 
are witnesses of these things."* "Wherefore of these men which 
have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in 
and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto the 
same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to 
be a witness with us of his resurrection."! Paul was called and or- 
dained some time after the twelve, " as one born out of due 
time ;" yet he saw the Lord, and was therefore a witness, " Am 

* Luke xxiv, 48. t Acts i, 21-22. See also Acts x, 39-41. 



298 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

I not an Apostle ? am I not free ? have I not seen Jesus Christ our 
Lord,^^* The church had indeed long been in existence ; but 
such a change in its organization became necessary, as would be 
adapted to the New Dispensation. The Apostles were appointed 
to this work. 

Here the question arises — was it the design of our Saviour that 
the Apostles, as such, should have successors ? Certainly as wit- 
nesses they could have none ; for those who might come after them 
could not SEE what they saw, and could not, therefore, testify. 
As officers to introduce the New Dispensation they could have 
no successors. Moreover, if they had successors as Apostles^ those 
successors, possessing apostolic authority^ must of course possess 
apostolic gifts. But Roman bishops do not pretend to possess 
the individual inspiration and infallibility, which the Apostles 
had. Since, then, they confessedly have not apostolic gifts, it is 
clear that they have not the apostolic office. In the ordinary 
duties of their office, viz : baptizing and teaching, the Apos- 
tles had successors ; but in their extraordinary duties they had 
not. 

Besides apostles, the primitive church had presbyters, bishops 
or pastors, and deacons. The word translated bishop, signifies 
on overseer — one who watches over the interests of a portion of 
the church. Scriptural bishops were pastors of churches, and 
were also called ^presbyters or elders, " From Miletus Paul sent 
to Ephesus, and called the presbyters (or elders) of the church ;" 
and those elders he exhorted to take heed to all the flock, " over 
which," said he, " the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers or 
bishops.''^! Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the hands 
of the presbytery. J Of the elders or presbyters, some ruled well, 
and others, besides ruling, labored in word and in doctrine. § 
The deacons were appointed to attend to the temporalities of the 
church. II The permanent officers of the church evidently were 
teaching presbyters, ruling presbyters, and deacons. 

Now let us compare the organization of the church of Rome 

* 1 Cor. ix, 1. t Acts xx, 17-28. 1 1 Tim. iv, 14. 

i 1 Tim. V, 17. II Acts vi, 1. 



THE TRUE CHURCH. 299 

with that of the Apostolic church. In the former we find the 
Tonsure^ in which " the hair of the head is cut in form of a 
crown, and should be worn in that form, enlarging the crown ac- 
cording as the ecclesiastic advances in orders." This tonsure, 
about the precise meaning of which Romanists are not agreed, 
is regarded as a consecration to God, and preparation to receive 
orders. Next to the Tonsure is tho Porter, who is consecrated 
to " take care of the keys and door of the church, suffering 
none to enter to whom entrance is prohibited;" to "assist at 
the Holy Sacrifice, and take care that no one shall approach 
too near the altar, or interrupt the celebrant;" and to discharge 
other functions not particularly mentioned in the Catechism of 
Trent. The next officer is the Reader, '' to whom it belongs 
to read to the people, in a clear and distinct voice, the sacred 
Scriptures, particularly the nocturnal Psalmody; and on him 
also devolves the task of instructing the faithful in the rudi- 
ments of the faith." Next comes the Exorcist, " to whom 
is given power to invoke the name of the Lord over persons 
possessed by unclean spirits. Hence, the Bishop, when initia- 
ting the Exorcist, hands him a book containing the exorcisms, 
and says : Take this and commit it to memory, and have power 
to impose hands on persons possessed, be they baptised or cate- 
chumensP We come, next, to the Acolyte, whose duty it is, 
" to attend and serve those in holy orders, Deacons and Sub- 
Deacons, in the ministry of the altar. The Acolyte also attends 
to the lights used at the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice, <fe;c. 
These minor orders, as they are called, are said to ^* form, as it 
were, the vestibule through which we ascend to holy orders." 
Next to the Acolyte, comes the Sub-Deacon, whose office " is to 
serve the Deacon in the ministry of the altar — to prepare the 
altar-linen, the sacred vessels, the bread and wine necessary 
for the Holy Sacrifice, to niinister water to the Priest or Bishop, 
at the washing of the hands, at mass," &c. Then comes the 
Deacon ; " to him it belongs constantly to accompany the Bishop, 
to attend him when preaching, to assist him and the Priest also 
during the celebration of the Holy Mysteries." " To the Dea- 



300 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

con also, as the eye of the Bishop, it belongs to enquire and 
ascertain who, within his diocess, lead lives of piety and edifi- 
cation, and who do not." Next to the Deacon comes the 
Priest^ at whose consecration a chalice containing wine and a 
patena with bread is handed him by the Bishop, who says : 
" Receive power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate mass 
as well for the living as for the dead." " By these words and 
ceremonies," says the Catechism of Trent, " he is constituted an 
interpreter and mediator between God and man, the principal 
function of the Priesthood. Finally, placing his hands on the 
head of the person to be ordained, the Bishop says : receive ye 
the Holy Ghost ; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven 
them ; and whose sins you retain, they are retained ; thus invest- 
ing him with that divine power of forgiving and retaining sins, 
which was conferred by our Lord on his disciples. These are 
the principal and peculiar functions of the Priesthood." I shall 
have something to say on this point presently. 

The next grade of office, is that of diocesan Bishop, who pre- 
sides over not only the people, but the clergy of a certain district. 
'•But Bishops," says the Catechism of Trent, "are also called 
' Pontiffs,' a name borrowed from the ancient Romans, and used 
to designate their chief-priests." Then comes the Arch-bishop or 
Metropolitan, who presides over several Bishops ; and next to him 
the Patriarchs, " the first and supreme Fathers in the Episcopal 
order." Finally we reach the Pope himself, surrounded by his 
Cardinals, possessing " the most exalted degree of dignity and the 
full amplitude of jurisdiction."* 

Now mark the fact: in this whole hierarchy ther e is not one 
office ichich appertained to the Apostolic church ! Do we find in 
the New Testament anything like what Papists call tonsure — 
shaving hair from the crown of the head? Do we find there any 
such officer as porter, reader, exorcist, or acolyte ? We do not ; 
and, what is more important, we find nothing of the duties those 
officers are to discharge. The primitive church had no need of 
persons to assist at any sacrifice, because no sacrifice was offered. 

* Cat. of Trent, pp. 216-232. 



L 



THE TRUE CHURCH. 301 

Readers were not needed, because the presbyter or bishop thought 
it no hardship to read the Scriptures. Exorcists were not needed, 
because Christans were not possessed with devils, and there were 
no " catechumens." Acolytes were not needed, because where 
there were religious services at night, any one could light the 
lamps, and they had not yet borrowed from the heathen the cus- 
tom of having holy candles burning in the day. Sub-deacons 
were not needed, because the deacons could serve themselves, and 
required no help. There were deacons ; but they were not such 
deacons as those in the church of Rome. Instead of accompany- 
ing the bishops, aiding them in the celebration of mass, being 
eyes for them, &c. — their business was to attend to the widows 
and the poor of the church, as any one will be convinced, who 
will read the 6th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. 

In the primitive church there were no priests. The Greek word 
which signifies a priest is never used to designate a minister of 
the gospel. When our Saviour gave the apostks that great com- 
mission which should continue till the end of the world, he gave 
it in these words, " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
commanded you : and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the 
end of the world. Amen."* Now, let me ask any man of com- 
mon understanding, what are the great duties required by this 
commission of those who fill the office of the ministry? Are 
they not teaching and hajptiziiig? But what is the principal 
function of the priest's office in the church of Rome? It is a 
function not mentioned, or even remotely alluded to, in the great 
commission, viz: ^-to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate mass 
as well for the living as for the dead." '^ By these words and 
ceremonies," says the Catechism of Trent, " he [the priest] is con- 
stituted an interpreter and mediator between God and man, the 
principal function of the priesthoods^ In addition to this principal 
function, the bishop says — ^' Receive ye the Holy Ghost ; whose 
sins you shall forgive they are forgiven," &.c. When our Saviour 

* Math, xxviii, 19-20. 



302 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

used this language to the apostles, he imparted to them divine 
inspiration, thus qualifying them for the extraordinary work they 
were called to perform. Does the man who is ordained a priest, 
and to whom the bishop addresses this language, receive the gift 
of the Holy Ghost and become an inspired man ? This is not 
pretended. Then why is the language employed, when the gift 
which accompanied it is no longer received? But let the fact be 
distinctly marked — that the two principal and peculiar functions 
of the Roman priesthood are not only not the principal functions 
of the Christian Ministry, but are not even alluded to in the great 
commission given the Apostles and their successors in the work of 
the ministry. Moreover, these functions, as understood by Rome, 
are an impious assumption of the prerogatives of the Son of God. 
The priests, we are told, are, by their consecration, constituted 
mediators between God and man. Paul says distinctly — " There 
is one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus."* 
They pretend to forgive sins judicially. No such power was ever 
claimed even by the inspired Apostles. 

In the New Testament we find no "pontiffs" or chief priests, 
such as Roman bishops. The Catechism of Trent says truly, 
that the name foniiff was borrowed from the ancient Romans ; 
and the office, as well as the name, is of pagan origin. And 
many other things there be, in the faith and worship of Rome, for 
which she is indebted to paganism ; insomuch that her cathedrals 
now do far more resemble pagan temples than houses of Christian 
worship. 

Of archbishops, patriarchs, cardinals, popes, we read not a 
word in the New Testament. The fact is clear, that the entire 
organization of the church of Rome, from the lowest to the high- 
est order of her officers, is unscriptural, so grossly unscriptural, 
that no one who had formed his ideas of the Christian church 
from reading the inspired accounts of it found in the Sacred 
Volume, would ever dream that the church of Rome had any 
connection with it. Not only the offices, but the duties embraced 
in them, and the doctrines on which they are based, are as unlike 

* 1 Tim., ii, 5. 



THE TRUE CHURCH. 303 

the offices, duties, and doctrines of the New Testament, as dark- 
ness is unlike the light. The former are not so much corruptions 
of the latter, as they are positive inventions, or rather substitu- 
tions of pagan offices, doctrines and rites. The conclusion is un- 
avoidable that the church of RomCj as to her organization, is not 
the church of Christ. 

2. We, in the next place, inquire what was the worship of the 
Apostolic church? The worship, like the organization, of the 
primitive church, was remarkable for its beautiful simplicity. It 
consisted in the following particulars : 

1st. The preaching of the word. "But we," said the Apos- 
tles, " will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the minis- 
try of the word." * Most solemnly did Paul charge Timothy — 
" preach the word, be instant in season and out of season." t 
And wherever the Apostles and Christian ministers went, their 
great business was the preaching of the gospel. Paul the Apostle 
states distinctly that this was the work to which he was specially 
called. " For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the 
gospeV^ X How radically different the views entertained by the 
Apostles of the work of the ministry from those of the Roman 
clergy. The great work of the latter is to say mass and hear 
confessions ; the great work of the former, to preach the gospel. 
2d. The next important part of worship, in the primitive church, 
was praying to God. The Apostles said, " We will give our- 
selves to prayer, and to the ministry of the word." Christians 
are exhorted to be "instant in prayer," to pray "with all prayer 
and supplication in the spirit," &:c. And we have mention made 
in the Acts of the Apostles of a most interesting prayer-meeting 
at the house of Mary, the mother of John, to which Peter went, 
when miraculously delivered from prison, "where many were 
gathered together praying." § 

But mark the fact — the Apostolic church never prayed before 
images of any kind ; nor did they ever address one petition to 
saint or angel ; all their prayers were offered to God. Every 

* Acts 7i, 4. t 2 Tim. iv, 1-2. % 1 Cor. i, 17. 

^ Acts xii, 12. See also Acts i, 14. 



304 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

petition in the Lord's prayer is addressed to God ; and it is re- 
corded of CorneliuSj a man greatly honored of God, that he 
'^frayed to God alwaysP^ And although God sent an angel 
with a message to him, we are not informed that he worshipped 
the angel When Peter was imprisoned by Herod, it is recorded 
that " prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God 
for him." t Neither Cornelius nor the church prayed to any 
being but God. Peter said to Simon Magus, "Pray God, if per- 
haps the thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee." Paul thus 
directs the Philippians : " But in everything by prayer and sup- 
plication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known 
u7ito GodV The same Apostle said to the Romans, " Brethren, 
my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might 
be saved." It is unnecessary to multiply quotations from the 
Scriptures. It is an indisputable fact, that there is not in the 
New Testament, nor in the Old, one prayer addressed to saint or 
angel ; and it is a fact, that in every instance in which the object 
of worship is mentioned, that object is God. 

How wonderfully different is the worship of the church of 
Rome. In the devotional books of that church we find many 
prayers addressed to Mary, the mother of Christ, to Paul, Peter, 
James, all the Apostles, all saints, and all angels ; and when we 
enter their houses of worship, instead of finding them offering 
prayers to God, as did the Apostolic church, we see them kneel- 
ing before the image or picture of Christ, and the images and 
pictures of the saints, and praying before them. And there we see 
them fall on their knees and adore a little piece of bread, and 
pray to that bread and to a cup of wine! — and we hear them de- 
clare that every such piece of bread and every such cup of wine 
is literally and truly the Son of God ! Verily, this cannot be the 
church of Christ. Her worship is not the worship of the Apos- 
tolic church. 

3d. Another important part of divine worship in the Apostolic 
church was singing the praises of God. Paul and Silas, in the 
prison of Philippi, at midnight, " prayed, and sang praises unto 
* Acts X, 2. t Acts xii, 5, 



THE TRUE CHURCH. 305 

God." * And Paul exhorts the Colossians to teach and admonish 
one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, " singing 
with grace in your hearts to the LordJ^ t And to the Ephesians 
he gives a similar exhortation.^ All the inspired Psalms, pre- 
pared specially for the worship of the temple, are addressed to 
God, or speak of his works and perfections. Not one contains 
an address to saint or angel. 

Now let us enter a Roman church, and what will we hear ? 
Hymns addressed to saints^ instead of God, like the following : — 

"Bright Mother of our Maker hail I 
Thou Virgin ever blessed; 
The ocean's star by which we sail, 
And gain the port of rest. 

Whilst we this Ave thus to thee 

From Gabriel's mouth rehearse, 
Prevail that peace our lot may be, 

And Eva's name reverse. 

Release our long entangled mind, 

From all the snares of ill; 
With heavenly light instruct the blind, 

And all our vows fulfill." 

Or the following : 

'' O Jesus, let thy anger cease, 
Thy Virgin Mother for our peace 
At thy tribunal pleading stands. 
And mercy earnestly demands. 

And you, O Angels, who in nine 
Distinguished orders glorious shine, 
Preserve our minds, our hearts and wills 
From present, past, and future ills. 

Ye Prophets and Apostles plead 
Before our Judge, and intercede 
For sinners, that by tears unfeigned 
His pard'ning grace may be obtained. 

* Acts xvi, 25. t Col. iii, 16. t Eph. v, 19. 

13* 



306 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 



Ye crimson troops of Martyrs bright, 
And Confessors arrayed in white, 
Let us no longer exiled roam, 
But call us to our heavenly home. 

Chaste Virgins, and ye truly wise, 

Who from the deserts filled the skies, 

For us an everlasting reign 

Amongst the saints of Christ obtain,'* &c.* 

In the Apostolic church there was no such intermingling of the 
praises of creatures with those of the Creator. This is idolatry. 
The worship of the church of Rome is not the worship of the 
Christian Church. Primitive Christians in their prayers and in 
their songs acknowledged no mediator but Christ, and called up- 
on no other. 

4th. The first day of the week, '• the Lord's day," was observed 
as the only Sabbath of the Apostolic church ; but in the church of 
Rome we find a multitude of holy days, which her children are 
required to observe ; and many of those days are observed in com- 
memmoration of the lives, and superstitious works, and pretended 
miracles of certain persons called saints. 

We have made another step of progress in our investigation. 
We have ascertained that the ivorship of the church of Rome, 
as well as her organization, is most unlike that of the Apostolic 
church — that it is decidedly idolatrous. Let us now turn our at- 
tention to another point, and enquire — 

5th. What were the ordinances of the Apostolic church ? — 
What were the means of grace which that churck enjoyed, in 
addition to her worship? The first we notice, is the ordi- 
nance of baptism. This ordinance was administered by a pres- 
byter or minister of the gospel, with ordinary water, in the 
name of the Holy Trinity. It was not regarded as possessing 
any inherent efficacy either to sanctify the soul, or to procure 
pardon of sins. It was regarded as an ordinance by which 
men were visibly identified with Christ, and as emblematic 
of the sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit. " The like 

* True Piety, pp. 465, 513. 



THE TRUE CHURCH. 307 

figure whereunto baptism doth also now save us (not the put- 
ting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good 
conscience towards God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." * 
And Paul says, " By one spirit we are all baptized into one body." t 
Baptism, was the divinely appointed pledge of remission of sins 
to all true believers, and the outward sign of the influences of 
the Holy Spirit in sanctifying the heart. But the fact that men 
had been baptized, was never referred to, as proof that they were 
either pardoned or sanctified. 

When we come to examine the baptism of Rome, we are told, 
" That such is the admirable efficacy of this sacrament as to re- 
mit original sin, and actual guilt however enormous." And this 
" transcendant efficacy," by which a sinful being is at once jus- 
tified, and made so perfectly pure, that God sees nothing in him to 
hate, is ascribed to a wonderful virtue imparted to water. — 
"Should we, however, ask how our Lord has endowed water 
with a virtue so great, so divine ; this indeed is an enquiry which 
transcends the power of the human understanding." J And to 
render the ordinance still more efficacious, the Roman clergy 
prepare holy water^ mixing oil with it, exorcise the person in or- 
der to expel the devil, put salt in his mouth, sign with the sign 
of the cross his forehead, eyes, breast, shoulders, and ears ; touch 
his nostrils and ears with spittle ; anoint him " with the oil of 
catechumens " on the breast and between the shoulders. After 
all this powowing over him, the ordinance is administered with 
the impure water prepared by the priest ; and then the crown of 
his head is anointed, a white garment is put on him, and a candle 
is put in his hand, and the name of some saint given to him. — 
Is this the simple, significant, impressive ordinance of which we 
read in the New Testament? O no, it is not ; or if its identity 
has not been destroyed, it has been so corrupted and perverted, 
that its true nature and design are almost wholly out of view. — 
Instead of an instructive ordinance, adapted to impress divine 
truth on the mind, it is a means of fatally deceiving men who 
are induced to rely upon a mysterious efficacy it is supposed to 

* 1 Pet. iii, 21. 1 1 Cor. xii, 13. t Cat. of Trent, pp. 118, 127. 



308 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

possess^ instead of looking immediately to Christ for justification, 
and to the Holy Spirit for inward purity. 

The Lord's Supper is still less like the original institution. In- 
stead of an ordinance in which, by the use of bread broken, and 
wine poured out, the death of our Saviour is impressively set 
forth, and his people taught to partake of it in remembrance of 
him ; we find men calling themselves priests^ pretending by mys- 
terious words to convert bread and wine into the very person of 
the Son of God, body, blood, soul, and divinity ; calling on all to 
bow down and adore the bread and wine, over which they have ut- 
tered those dark sentences ; taking one half of the ordinance from 
the people, and, instead of bread broken, placing a thin white 
wafer on their tongues, assuring them that they are eati'ng Jesus 
Christ. Then the same men carry the wafer in public proces- 
sions, to be adored by the people, say what they call mass^ pre- 
tending to offer a real propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the 
dead. Such a commingling of the absurd, the ridiculous, and the 
impious was never before known! The ordinances of God's 
house are not administered by the church of Rome. 

But what do we see ? In the primitive church there were no 
means of grace, except the preaching and reading of the Word, 
prayer, singing, baptism, the Lord's Supper, and occasional fast- 
ing. But in the church of Rome we find holy water, holy oil, 
holy fire, holy ashes, holy palm, holy candles, holy medals, holy 
Agnus Dei's, holy ground, holy relics, (fee, (fee, all of which are 
declared to be efficacious in securing important blessings to soul 
and body, protection from storms, diseases, shipwrecks, devils, and 
I know not what more ! And yet, strange to tell, in those coun- 
tries where all these holy things are most venerated and most 
abundantly used, wickedness prevails, and the people are far 
more degraded and wretched than where such inventions are 
unknown ! 

We come, then, fairly to the conclusion, that, so far as orgoni- 
zation, worship, and ordinances are concerned, the church of Rome 
is not the Apostolic church ; and I cheerfully leave the intelligent 
and candid who have heard my preceding lectures, to determine. 



THE TRUE CHURCH. 309 

whether she is not equally corrupt in all her distinguishing doc- 
trines. The two great distinguishing doctrines of the Gospel — 
justification by faith iii Jesus Christy and sanctification hy the in- 
fiuences of tJie Holy Spiritj are about as much corrupted as the 
two sacraments which are designed emblamatically to present those 
doctrines to the minds of men. Instead of the former we find, in 
the church of Rome^ penances by which men make satisfaction 
for their own sins, works of supererogation or the superabundant 
merits of the saints, made over to their less zealous brethren, the 
mass offered for the living and the dead, as a real sacrifice for 
sins, extreme unction, purgatorial fires, and the like. Instead of 
the latter, we have baptism, holy water, bodily inflictions, purify- 
ing fires of purgatory, and many such inventions. 

By way of giving further evidence against the claims of Rome, 
let me state the fact, that she not only tolerates and patronizes all 
the errors I have named and many more ; but she excommunicates 
and anathemizes all who refuse to believe and practice them, or 
even doubt their infallible truth. No man can openly preach the 
fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, and yet remain in her com- 
munion. She requires, as terms of membership, that every one 
shall believe all she teaches, and obey all her commands. She 
requires every one of her children to receive his faith, not on the 
ground that it is sustained by the Word of God, but simply be- 
cause the clergy dictate it. She constrains them all, as a condi- 
tion of membership, to be idolaters. She arrays herself in dead- 
ly hostility against all who hold and preach the pure gospel. 
Long has she, as often as opportunity has been afforded, unsheath- 
ed the sword of persecution against all who would obey Christ 
rather than her ; and often has she committed cruelties at which 
human nature shudders. There is not now, in this wicked world, 
one enemy of the Gospel, so powerful and so determined. 

Shall we recognise such a body as the church, or even a branch 
of the church of Christ? There may be pious persons in her 
communion ; but they are pious simply because they do not really 
believe her errors ; as there have been true Christians in Unitarian 
communions, who do not deny the Divinity of Christ, Long did 



310 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

the conflict between light and darkness wax more and more vio- 
lent, as error and wickedness overspread a great part of Christen- 
dom. From time to time, the faithful servants of God separated 
from the pope's communion ; until the voice of God was heard, 
in the 16th century — ^- Come out of her my people." That voice 
w^as sounded by the Reformers from nation to nation, until all 
Christendom heard it. The pope was aroused from his security. 
The forces were mustered on either side for the fearful conflict.— 
Gradually those who loved the truth, obeyed the summons, and 
stood firmly under the banner of the cross. The separation con- 
tinued to progress. Finally the Council of Trent assembled, and 
made apostacy from Christ a term of communion. Errors tolerated 
and patronized before, were now enforced.. All must receive them, 
or be excommunicated and cursed. Up to that time^ men in the 
Roman communion might deny the plenary inspiration of apocry- 
phal books ; but the Council placed them on an equality with the 
inspired books. Step by step, the Man of Sin had forced his errors 
upon the people ; and now in a general council he and his church 
take, before the world, the attitude of rebels against God. Just so 
did the Scribes and Pharisees corrupt the Jewish church more 
and more, until they resolved to put out of the synagogue every 
one who should venture to acknowledge Christ. Then the final 
separation was soon effected : and that church was no longer a 
church of God. 

It is difficult to say precisely how far a church may go in error, 
before it becomes a synagogue of Satan. 1 can acknowledge a 
church as a component part of Christ's church, even when, as a 
body, it teaches many gross errors. But when it requires, as terms 
of communion, the reception of an immense mass of human com- 
position, and tradition as the word of God ; the solemn promise and 
oath to believe as infallibly true all the errors its clergy may choose 
to teach ; the daily commission of gross idolatry, and the like ; — 
Avhen a church not only requires these things, but excommuni- 
cates, and anathematizes, and persecutes unto the death, all who 
hold the truth ; — I cannot, I dare not, recognize it as a part of 
Christ's church. It is a rebellious province, and has gone over 



I 



THE TRUE CHURCH. 311 

to the enemy. The Man of Sin did rise in the temple of God — 
the church — and long did he tyrannize over a large portion of it ; 
but the time came when the church threw off his ghostly authori- 
ty, and returned to the pure worship of God. The church was 
in Babylon ; but she came out, at the command of God, and left 
it to perish. We have now nothing to do with her priests or her 
ordinances. 

The church did not, by coming out of Babylon, unchurch her- 
self ; nor did the Reformers by throwing off the corrup.tions of 
popery, cease to be ministers of Christ. As well might it he said 
that John the Baptist ceased to be a priest, because he threw off 
the accumulated errors of Judaism, and, despite of the rage, of the 
Scribes and Pharisees, gathered a multitude of disciples who ulti- 
mately left the Jewish communion. 

It may be said that the Council of Trent established no new- 
doctrines, and that the church of Rome was quite as corrupt be- 
fore, as after its meeting. This is not admitted ; but suppose it 
to be so. Was not the Jewish church quite as corrupt before John 
the Baptist began to preach, as when her rulers determined to ex- 
communicate every man who dared to acknowledge the Saviour ? 
I presume it will not be denied that it was. But pious men still 
lingered in her bosom, opposing, as they could, her corruptions. 
The aged Simeon and Anna the prophetess, and Zachariah and 
Elizabeth, and Mary and Joseph, and many others were still there. 
Nothing had occurred to call them out, to separate the chaff from 
the wheat. But when the stirring voice of John was heard, fol- 
lowed by the fearful denunciations and the gracious words of the 
Messiah, the signal for the final separation was given. It required 
some time to effect it, but it was effected, and the corrupt mass 
left to be overwhelmed by the judgments of God. So it was with 
the Reformation of the 16th century. God sent forth chosen 
men, and called his people out of Babylon, and they obeyed his 
.voice. The question was then made before the world, w^hether 
Rome should longer lord it over God's heritage ; and whilst they 
who feared God were separating themselves from the corrupt mass, 
she arrayed herself in more systematic and determined hostility 



312 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

to the truth. From the day when the assembled Fathers of Trent 
pronounced their " anathema to all heritics," whatever may be said 
of the previous mixture of good and evil, we cannot recognize in 
the bosom of Rome the true church. 

' But can we find the true church ? Yes — wherever we find a 
body of people, having substantially the Scriptural organization, 
the Scriptural worship, the Scriptural ordinances, and the Scrip- 
tural faith of which we have spoken ; there we find a portion of the 
true church. There are in our world a great number of such 
churches — churches differing somewhat in several of these par- 
ticulars, some more pure, some less so, but essentially agreeing ; 
and these churches constitute the true Church Catholic. They are 
not all united under one visible head ; but neither was the Apostolic 
church. They do not meet in general council ; but neither did 
the primitive church. The different churches in the Apostolic age 
recognized each other as brethern in Christ ; but they did not hold 
regular assemblies in which all were represented. Such councils 
are useful in their place ; but they are not essential to the unity of 
the church. 

' In what^ let us inquire^ consists the unity of the church ? This 
is an important question ; and it shall be answered by an inspired 
Apostle. " And he gave some Apostles ; and some Prophets, &c. 
— ^till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of 
the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the 
stature of the fulness of Christ."* Here we find the real unity 
of the church. It consists not in the circumstance of a common 
name, such as Catholic, or Presbyterian, or Methodist, or Baptist. 
All the churches in the world that acknowledge Christ as the 
Messiah, are called Christians ; but it does not follow, that they 
all hold the true Christian faith. Names, aside from realities, are 
nothing. If several bodies of professing Christians are found to 
hold substantially the same faith ; the fact, that, while they all 
claim the general name of Christians, they have different dis- 
tinguishing names, will not destroy their real unity. One portion 
of the church of Rome is called Dominicans ; another, Jesuits ; a 

*Eph.iv, 11-13. 



THE TRUE CHURCH. 313 



third, Franciscans ; but they all claim to constitute one church. 
It may be said, they are all united to one visible head at Rome; 
and therefore their unity is preserved. So are the different Pro- 
testant denominations that have the Scriptural marks we have 
mentioned, united to one head, the Lord Jesus Christ; for they all 
believe in him as the Messiah, the Saviour of men. 

And in this consists the real unity of the church — in unity of 
faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God. The revelation 
of God embraces a great variety of topics ; and it is not to be sup- 
posed, that on every single point any two men will see alike. In 
the church of Rome, notwithstanding all her boasting about unity, 
there are differences of belief — differences, too, as we have proved, 
on points of great practical importance. One party believes in the 
personal infallibility of the pope, when he undertakes officially to 
defiuearticles of faith and morals ; and they, of course, receive his 
decisions as if Christ had spoken. Others deny that he is infalli- 
ble, and maintain that he may be a heretic. One party believe 
that the pope has, by divine gift, universal temporal power, and 
can, therefore, depose kings and princes, and absolve their sub- 
jects from their oath of allegiance. One party believe, that it is 
not only right, but that it is the solemn duty, of temporal princes 
to punish heretics, even with death ; and that the church has the 
right to command them to do so. The other party, found only 
or chiefly in Protestant countries, profess not to believe this doc- 
trine. Some eminent men claimed by Roman Catholics have 
held the doctrines commonly called Calvinistic ; whilst others 
have held those called Armenian. 

But our cunning adversaries are prepared with an answer. 
They tell us they differ from each other, not in faith, but only in 
opinion. This, however, is a mere play upon words. The ques- 
tion whether the pope is infallible is as truly a question concern- 
ing /<xi^^, as is the question whether he is the visible head of the 
church. The question whether it is right to kill men for being 
heretics is as truly a question of morals (and therefore of faith), 
as the question whether it is right to steal. And the questions 

which divide the Calvinists and Armenians as truly relate to faith 
14 



314 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

among Romanists as among Protestants. If the latter would 
only agree to call all the points on which they differ, opinions^ 
and those about which they agree, doctrines or matters of faitk, 
they would just have as much unity as Papists have, without 
being really more united than they are. The unity of Rome is 
partly nominal, and partly forced. In Roman countries men 
dare not express views different from those of the church ; for 
penalties, ecclesiastical and civil, await them if they venture to 
do so. How far they really hold the doctrines of Rome, there- 
fore, cannot be certainly known. The real state of things in all 
Roman countries is probably about as in Mexico. Thompson, in 
his Recollections of Mexico says, " I would remark here a fact 
which surprised me very much. All know that the doctrine of 
the real presence in the Eucharist is a cardinal point in the 
Catholic creed. * * * Yet 1 never asked the question of a 
Catholic in Mexico, and I did so of more than fifty of all classes, 
from foreign ministers to coachmen and servants, who believed it 
any more than I did. Whenever I asked the question, ^ Do you 
really believe that the bread and wine used in the sacrament are 
the flesh and blood of Christ V the reply, in almost every instance, 
was the same as that made to me by more than one member of 
the diplomatic corps, who were Catholics and educated gentlemen, 
* What, sir, do you think that I am a fool ? no, I believe no such 
thing. I believe it is a type, an emblem, but nothing more.' I 
replied, • Then you are no Catholic ; ask your priest; and he will 
tell you so.' They answered, ' Very well, we have never before 
heard of it ; but if the priests say so, we have no doubt that it is 
true ; for their lives are devoted to those studies, and they know more 
about them than we do.' " * Well may Thompson ask, " Can free 
institutions exist in a country where such a state of things exists? " 

But the fact is, it requires both compulsion and absurd distinc- 
tions to preserve the appearance of Romish unity. It is not 
"unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God." 

As just remarked, it is not to be expected that any two men 
will precisely agree concerning everything taught in the Bible. 

^pp. 108-9. 



THE TRUE CHURCH. 315 

But on those great questions which are essential to ecclesiastical 
organization, worship, ordinances, and doctrines, multitudes of 
churches do substantially agree. They all build on the same 
foundation — Christ crucified ; and all expect to be sanctified by 
the Holy Spirit. Some may build more "wood, hay, and stub- 
ble;'^ others, more "gold, silver, and precious stones;" but all 
who build on this only true foundation are true Christians, and 
will be saved.* 

But can we trace any of the Protestant churches up to the 
Apostles? Yes, just as easily as the Jewish church, after the 
Babylonish captivity, could trace its history back to Moses and 
Abraham. Before the captivity, corruptions in faith and worship 
had greatly multiplied, insomuch that " all the chiefs of the priests 
and the people transgressed very much after all the abominations 
of the heathen, and polluted the house of the Lord which he had 
hallowed in Jerusalem." t They burned incense "to the queen 
of heaven, and poured out drink-offerings unto her." J They 
sacrificed in the high places, and committed idolatry under every 
green tree; until the wrath of God overwhelmed them. Ezra, 
Nehemiah, Joshua, and others, were raised up to be reformers ; 
and, on the return of the Jews from captivity, a great reformation 
was effected. All those heathenish practices were rejected, and 
they re-established the pure worship of God. Now let the false 
teachers taunt them with the question, "where Vv^as your church 
before Ezra and Nehemiah?" What would be their answer? 
Would they not say, " We have the Book of the Law, in which 
we have an accurate description of the church as it was origin- 
ally organized, and as its worship and ordinances and faith are 
set forth by Moses. The church erred from the truth ; and com- 
mitted great abominations. We have only thrown off those cor- 
ruptions, and the church is again restored to purity." Just so we 
answer the Papists. A large majority of the Jews had aposta- 
tized, viz., the ten tribes, just as a large part of the nominal Chris- 
tian church became corrupt. But we have in our hands the 
New Testament ; we see what the church originally was, in her 

*1 Cor., iii. \2 Chron., xxxvi, 14. t Jer., xliv, 17. 



316 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

organization, her worship, her ordinances, &c., and we see that 
by the Reformation the corruptions which had been for ages 
accumulating, were rejected, and the truth retained. We have 
churches now, which are just such as those organized by the 
Apostles. 

But suppose the false teachers had said to Ezra, and Nehe- 
miah, " We can trace our church up to Moses and Abraham ; 
yours is of yesterday." They would have replied by denying 
the truth of the assertion ; and would have said, *' Moses ap- 
pointed no incense to be burned to the queen of Heaven, nor 
any drink offerings to be offered to her ; he appointed no sac- 
rifices such as you offer in the high places, and under the green 
trees. You are corrupters of the word of God." So say we 
to Romanists, when they boastingly tell us, they can trace their 
church up to the Apostles. We deny the truth of the asser- 
tioQ. We affirm, that Jesus Christ appointed no pope, no 
archbishops, no cardinals, no priests, no acolytes, no readers, 
no porters ; he and the Apostles did not talk of mortal and venial 
sins, auricular confessions, human satisfaction, purgatory, prayers 
for the dead, masses, indulgences, images, prayers to saints and 
angels, holy water, holy palm, holy ashes, holy fire, and a 
hundred more things found in the worship of Rome. She 
has awfully corrupted the truth, and now preaches "another 
gospel," which the Apostles never preached. And Roman Catho- 
lics must falsify history as much as they have corrupted the gos- 
pel, before they can trace even the shadow of their church up to 
the Apostles. 

One thing is certain : those churches which have an Apostolic 
organization. Apostolic worship. Apostolic ordinances, and Apos- 
tolic doctrines, cannot be wrong ; and the church that has not these, 
cannot be right. «' To the word and to the testimony." The 
only book in the world in which a true account of the Apostolic 
churches can be found, is the New Testament. There we get a 
view of the church of Christ in its purity. We challenge our 
adversaries to the investigation. We are prepared to submit our 



THE TRUE CHURCH. 317 

faith, our worship — all, to the infallible test. Dare they do the 
same? 

But there is to be a brighter day in the history of the church 
of Christ. We have in our hands the true and infallible standard. 
It may be, that many have not fully conformed their faith and 
worship to it ; but the different branches of the church will come 
nearer the light. The watchmen will see eye to eye. The light 
of the moon will be as the light of the sun ; and the light of the 
sun will be seven-fold, even as the light of seven days ; for the 
mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. In the meantime, we rejoice 
to acknowledge as brethren, all who build on the foundation 
which God has laid in Zion, even though they build some wood, 
hay, and stubble ; and we pray God to hasten the day, when all 
error and superstition shall disappear from our world, and when 
Satan shall be bound a thousand years. Amen. 



( 



EDUCATION IN ROMAN SCHOOLS. 319 



LECTURE XII. 

Proverbs xxii, 6. ** Train up a child in the way he should go: and when 
he is old he will not depart from it" 

This portion of Scripture presents a duty and a promise. The 
duty is, to train up children in the way they should go — to impart 
to them such instruction, and bring them under such discipline, 
as is adapted to guide them in the paths of virtue. The promise 
(or the declared consequence) is, that, however for a time they 
may wander in forbidden ways, yet in after life, in the days of 
mature reflection, they will return to the ways of wisdom and 
virtue. 

It is difficult to estimate adequately the importance of the sub- 
ject which I now propose for your consideration — the training of 
the rising generation. They are the hope of parents and friends. 
With what intense interest does every parent, of right feelings, 
look forward to the future career of the children of his affection. 
To how great an extent does his happiness or misery in declining 
years depend upon the character they may form, and the course 
they may pursue. He hopes for the best ; but as he thinks of 
the dangers that lie thick along the path of life, and of the multi- 
tudes of promising youths who have fallen therein, the hopes 
inspired by parental affection are mingled with painful apprehen- 
sions. Can it be otherwise, then, than that affectionate and re- 
flecting parents will feel an intense interest in regard to that train- 
ing under which principles are to be imbibed, and habits formed, 
that must, to a great extent, determine the future history of their 
children ? 

They are the hope of the church. The present generation of 
ministers and members is rapidly passing off the stage, and 
going to their rest. The future prosperity of the church depends 



3-20 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

upon the proper training and the conversion of the rising genera- 
tion. God works by means. We cannot, therefore, expect our 
children to rise up and stand in the place of their parents, as in- 
telb'gent, unflinching, faithful witnesses for the truth, unless they 
be trained up " in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." To 
every enlightened Christian, therefore, the education of the young 
is a matter of the deepest interest. 

They are the hope of the country. We glory in our free in- 
stitutions ; we desire to see them perpetuated. We would trans- 
mit them in their purity to our children, and have them imbibe 
their spirit, enjoy the rich blessings they are adapted to secure, 
and hand them down as a rich legacy to the succeeding genera- 
tion. But, we know that the continuance of our institutions de- 
pends upon the intelligence and virtue of the people. Intelligence 
alone is not sufficient. Intellectual training is important ; but it 
is the moral principles of men and of nations which constitute 
their glory or their shame, and which secure to them prosperity, 
or plunge them into ruin. No nation was ever destroyed sim- 
ply or chiefly for the lack of intellectual training. Every enlight- 
ened patriot must, therefore, feel an intense interest, not only in 
the education of the young, but in the kind of education they are 
to receive. 

To whom shall we commit this most important trust ? This 
is a question of the very first importance ; for the influence of 
teachers in forming the principles and moulding the character of 
their pupils must necessarily be very great. This is evident if 
we consider the design of education — the work committed to their 
hands. Among the objects to be secured by a good education 
we may mention the following : 

1. To develope, strengthen, and discipline the intellectual pow- 
ers. 2. To radicate in the mind correct moral principles, and 
thus form a good moral character. 3. To impart useful know- 
ledge with reference to the avocations of life. 4. To teach every 
one to understand and maintain his own rights, and to respect 
the rights of others — to inculcate the principles of civil and 
religious liberty. The men to whom such a work is commit- 



EDUCATION IN ROMAN SCHOOLS. 321 

ted, must exert upon the minds of their pupils a most extensive 
influence. 

This is not all. Teachers, if successful in their work, must 
secure both the respect and the affection of their pupils. Chil- 
dren and youth, it is well known, receive little advantage from 
teachers whom they do not respect and love ; and it is equally 
certain, that they are predisposed to embrace the cherished senti- 
ments, literary, political, and religious, of those for whom they 
feel an affectionate regard. None of us, perhaps, are fully aware 
of the extent to which our personal attachments affect our opin- 
ions and our faith. When our children are placed under the 
tuition of teachers, they of course consider them wiser than 
themselves, perhaps wiser than their parents. They are conse- 
quently prepared to attach importance to their opinions ; and 
this disposition is greatly increased by strong affection. Parents 
and guardians, therefore, are most solemnly bound to look well to 
the sentiments and the characters of those to whom they commit 
the instruction of their children and wards. This obligation 
should be most deeply felt by religious parents, who have sol- 
emnly dedicated their children to God, binding themselves in 
covenant to train them up for God and for heaven ; and who be- 
lieve that they are to be sanctified, and saved " through the iruth,^'* 
They are training their children less for distinction among men, 
than for the eternal happiness of heaven. Are they not under 
special obligations — obligations to be estimated only by the eter- 
nal interests of the soul, to shield their tender minds from evil 
influences, and to bring them, to the greatest possible extent, 
under the power of divine truth ? Others may say, " We do not 
send our children to school to learn religion ;" but the enlight- 
ened Christian will be careful, at least, not to send his where they 
will learn irreligion or a false religion. 

I cheerfully acknowledge the right of the Roman clergy to es- 
tablish in our country schools and colleges, and to secure, as far 
as they can by honest means, the education of our youth ; and I 
admire the wisdom of their course. They are truly wise in ex- 
tending their influence over the mind, ere yet its religious faith 



322 



ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 



is firmly established, and while most susceptible of deep and per- 
manent impressions. But when our people are invited to place 
their children in those institutions to be educated, and are assured 
that no improper influence will be exerted over their minds ; we 
have the right — nay, it becomes our indispensable duty, to in- 
quire into their character, and to expose what is wrong or of 
dangerous tendency in them. And herein the Roman clergy set 
us an example. They invite and allure the children of Protest- 
ants into their schools, but are extremely careful to prevent their 
people from placing their children in those of Protestants. We 
have all heard of their persevering opposition to the Common 
Schools in the city of New York, in which no sectarian senti- 
ments are allowed to be inculcated, and of their zealous efforts to 
secure a part of the public money for the purpose of establishing 
schools of their own. And we all remember that letter of Bish- 
op Purcell, of this city, to a gentleman in Europe, in which he 
expressed the greatest solicitude and even distress, because of the 
influence of our Common Schools ; whilst at the same time he 
here professed great friendship for them ! The Roman clergy are 
so well aware of the influence exerted by teachers over the reli- 
gious opinions of their pupils, that they prevent their people, as 
far as possible, from patronizing any Protestant schools. Protest- 
ants may well learn a lesson from the example they set us. 

There are certainly many serious objections to the schools, of 
every class, established in this country by the Roman clergy, 
some of which I now proceed to present. 

1. They do not and cannot develope, strengthen, and improve the 
powers of the mind, as this great work should be done. That 
they cannot will appear evident from two or three considerations. 

1st. According to the creed by which Romanists are governed, 
religion and morals are forbidden subjects of investigation. The 
Council of Trent, as 1 proved in preceding lectures, decreed that in 
faith and morals, and in v^^hatever pertains to the maintenance of 
Christian doctrine, all should submit to the dictation of the Roman 
clergy. These subjects, they tell us, are committed exclusively 
to them ; they are our infallible guides. Now it is a fact, that 



EDUCATION IN ROMAN SCHOOLS. 323 

no other class of subjects so tends to strengthen the powers and 
elevate the character of the human mind, as this. What themes 
are so boundless, so sublime, so beautiful, as the being and 
character of the infinite Jehovah, his perfect law, and man's duty 
and destiny. On these themes the most celebrated poets have 
dwelt, and to the inspired volume they were indebted for their 
richest imagery and their loftiest flights. Who that has read 
Milton, and Young, and Cowper, and many others, can doubt 
this ? But upon these exalted themes, adapted alike to expand 
and to purify the mind, the Roman clergy must teach their pupils 
that it is unwise and sinful for them, to extend their inquiries 
beyond the teachings of their church. Church dictation, not 
freedom of thought, must be inculcated here. 

But these subjects, in themselves so deeply interesting to every 
reflecting mind, are intimately connected with several of the most 
important branches of science ; so that the restraints thrown around 
the former, greatly tramel the mind in its investigations of the 
latter. The student of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, for 
example, is employed in studying the wonderful works of God ; 
and it is not easy, nor is it wise, to look at the wonders of the 
intricate machinery of the universe, without contemplating the 
character of the Great Architect and our duty to Him. But here 
men are in constant danger of treading on forbidden ground, of 
interfering with the prerogatives of the clergy. We have all 
heard of Gallileo, w^ho, for the crime of discovering that the earth 
revolved round the sun, was imprisoned in the Inquisition ! 
And the influence of clerical dictation in matters of science ij» 
most remarkably exemplified in the case of Le Seur and Jacquier, 
two eminent mathematicians, who published Newton's Principia^ 
with comments. For the purpose of escaping the fate of Gallileo, 
they, in their preface, use the following language: "Newton as- 
sumes, in his third book, the hypothesis of the earth's motion. The 
propositions of that author could not be explained except through 
the same hypothesis. We have therefore been forced to act a 
character not our own. But we declare our submission to the decrees 
of the Roman Pontiffs against the Motion of the earth,^^ Such 



324 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY 

was the language learned men were compelled to adopt in Roman 
countries, no longer ago than 1742 ! They trembled to announce 
a new discovery connected in any way with religion, lest they 
should be overwhelmed by the anathemas of an ignorant clergy I 

In the study of mental and moral science there is still greater 
danger of treading on forbidden ground. It is with the mind 
especially that religion is concerned ; and from scarcely any other 
source have more serious errors been introduced into the Christian 
church, than from false systems of mental philosophy. The 
philosophy of Plato and of Aristotle successively corrupted the 
doctrines of the church and perverted the teachings of inspiration ; 
and the same injurious influence has been exerted by more modern 
systems. Man possesses a moral, as well as an intellectual 
nature, and in the study of mental science the former as well as 
the latter is to be investigated. But the moment you enter upon 
this most interesting study, v/hich is emphatically the study of 
man^ you enter a territory over which the clergy claim supreme 
authority ; and instead of freely pushing your investigations, 
guided by your own consciousness, and the writings of standard 
authors, you are tamely to receive and adopt their authoritative 
decisions. And the truth is, the mental and moral science of the 
Roman clergy, like their religious faith, is that of the dark ages, 
with only such slight improvements as may serve, in this age of 
light, to conceal its deformity. It is, indeed, impossible to sepa- 
rate religious faith from mental science, so that the one shall not, 
to a great extent, give color to the other. The Roman clergy 
cannot teach moral science correctly, because the moral principles 
inculcated by their church, and imposed on her children by pre- 
tended infallibility, are radically unsound. The truth of this 
statement will appear from several considerations : 

The Bible is the only source from which a correct system of 
moral science can be drawn. It has been the text book used by 
the most eminent writers on this subject, such as Reed, Brown, 
Stewart, Wayland, &c In its sacred pages we learn from infalli- 
ble teachers the character and perfections of God, our own char- 
acter, our relation to our Creator, and to our fellow creatures, the 



EDUCATION IN ROMAN SCHOOLS. 



325 



claims of his moral law upon us, and the motives and encourage- 
ments to a life of virtue, ft is the only infallible standard of 
morals. The day has passed when men deemed it necessary to 
study the writings of Plato and Aristotle, that they might be phi- 
losophers ; and there is not, so far as my knowledge extends, one 
system of mental and moral science extant, written by an infidel 
or a decided Papist, that can claim a respectable stand amongst 
standard works. The authors whose works are used as text 
books in our best institutions of learning, are Protestants, who 
confessedly are indebted to the sacred Scriptures for the systems of 
moral truth they inculcate. 

But the Roman clergy, and teachers who are in communion 
with the church of Rome, cannot go to the Scriptures for their sys- 
tem of moral science. This has been settled long since by Popes 
and councils whose decisions are regarded as infallible. If they 
appeal to the Bible at all, they dare not interpret one passage oth- 
erwise than according to the interpretation given by the church 
and the Fathers. " In order to restrain petulent minds," the Coun- 
cil of Trent forbade any one, priest or private Christian, to wrest 
the Scriptures to his own sense of them, either in matters of faith 
or of morals. 

How can teachers thus bound by decisions and interpretations 
of the dark ages, teach our children that it is their privilege and 
duty freely to investigate these important subjects? Are they 
not, on the contrary, under the necessity of informing them that 
in such matters they have only to hear the church and receive 
implicitly her decisions ? The clergy, Milner says, do daily read 
portions of the Scriptures, though he did not slate, what is no less 
true, that even they must read them with the spectacles of the 
Council of Trent over their eyes. " But," says he, " no such 
obligation is generally incumbent on the flock, that is, on the 
laity, it is sufficient for them to hear the word of God from those 
whom God has appointed to announce and explain it to them, 
whether by sermons, or catechisms, or other good books, or in 
the tribunal of penance. Thus it is not the bounden duty of all 
good subjects to read and study the laws of their country: it is 



325 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

sufficient for them to hear and submit to the decisions of the 
judges, and other legal officers, pronouncing upon them."* The 
Roman clergy, you perceive, must and do say to all, that the 
whole business of interpreting Scripture belongs exclusively to 
them, and it is not their duty or their privilege to attempt to un- 
derstand them for themselves. Their system of moral science 
must be derived, not from the word of God, but from the decrees 
of Trent and of other councils in the dark ages. But upon the 
moral principles of men depend their happiness and their useful- 
ness. As these are good or bad, pure or corrupt, they will be 
elevated or degraded in their character, a blessing or a curse to 
society. Let me appeal to the fathers and mothers who hear me, 
and ask — are you willing to have the minds of your children 
thus trammeled in this most important branch of education ? Shall 
they be taught to think freely on the subject of Mathematics, to 
sift to the bottom every proposition ; but when they would study 
that science which concerns their own immortal nature, their 
moral character and their happiness, here and hereafter, tamely 
to receive the dicta of the clergy, and submit themselves to be 
moulded in moral character, as they please ? Or should they not 
be taught, as rational and accountable beings, to read that best 
and purest of all books, and inquire freely what are the claims 
of God's law upon his creatures ? Are you willing to have your 
children feel, that on that subject, which in its almost boundless 
circle embraces nearly every other, they are to take their faith 
and their principles without understanding either the one or the 
other? 

2. The moral principles held and taught in Roman schools are 
radically unsound, and calculated to sap the very foundations of vir- 
tue. Romanists hold, for example, this principle, that the magni- 
tude of a crime is to be estimated^ not by the importance of the mor- 
al' principle of which it is a violation^ but by the amount of injury 
actually resulting from it. Lying, for instance, is a clear viola- 
tion of the law of God, and is, therefore, a great sin. Now, in the 
Doway Catechism we have the following question and answer : 

*End of Con., Let. xlviii. 



EDUCATION IN ROMAN SCHOOLS. 



327 



" d. Why is it a sin to lie ? A. Because the devil is a liar, and 
the father of all lies."* It is a sin to tell lies, not so much be- 
cause God has forbidden it, as because the devil is a liar ! The 
answer to the question would have been quite as reasonable and 
as Scriptural, if the Catechism had said, it is a sin to lie, because 
Ananias and Saphira lied to the Holy Ghost ! But this by the 
way. The question and answer to which 1 request particular at- 
tention, are the following : " Q,. When is a lie a mortal sin ? — 
A. When it is any great dishonor to God, or notable prejudice to 
our neighbor: otherwise, if it be merely officious, or trifling, it is 
but a venial sin." A venial sin, according to the same author- 
ity, " is a small and very pardonable offense against God or our 
neighbor."! Here we are taught, that we may habitually tell 
lies, in direct violation of God's law, without being chargeable 
with any thing more than a small and very pardonable offense — 
an offense easily " remitted by all the sacraments, by holy water, 
devout prayer, alms-deeds, and the like good works. "J We may 
steal^ too, as well as lie, without committing any grievious sin ; 
for the same Catechism has the following question and answer: 
*^ When is theft a mortal sin ? A. When the thing stolen is of 
a considerable value, or causeth a considerable hurt to our neigh- 
bor." § If the value of the article stolen be not considerable — a 
word perfectly indefinite in its meaning — or if it do not cause a 
considerable hurt to our neighbor ; then the sin is very trifling, 
notwithstanding it is an open violation of one of the most impor- 
tant precepts of the moral law. 

In a preceding lecture this subject was presented somewhat 
extensively, and the principles of Rome, as carried out in the con- 
fessional, exposed. I may pass it here, therefore, more briefly 
than it would otherwise be proper to do. Let me ask those who 
regard the moral principles their children may adopt, as of pri- 
mary importance, whether they are willing to have them con- 
sider lying and stealing small offenses, under any circumstances'? 
Is it true that the moral turpitude of theft depends on the quanti- 
ty stolen, or the injury done to a fellow man ? Is it not true, that 

* p. 48. t pp. 69, 110. t Dow. Cat., p. 111. ^ p. 66. 



1328 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

he who steals five cents, proves himself destitute of honesty — a 
thief in heart and in fact ? Yet, according to the moral code of 
Rome, a man may be in the daily habit of stealing small sums, 
and in this way m^ay ultimately steal a large sum, and yet be 
guilty of only a small offense, not sufficiently important to re- 
quire confession of it to a priest ! 

But there is yet a more serious aspect of this subject. What 
will be the inevitable effects of such principles on the moral cha- 
racter of the young ? Is it not true, that the worst liars began 
their downward course by telling lies which they considered of 
trifling importance? Have not the worst thieves and robbers 
began their course af iniquity by stealing small quantities ? And 
if your children be taught to regard such lying and thieving 
"a small and very pardonable offense," will they not be likely to 
yield to temptation, and thus commence a course which will, in 
all probability, terminate in disgrace and ruin? But just such 
morality Romanists must teach; for just such they believe to be 
infallibly true ! 

Another false principle of morals abundantly inculcated by 
Romanists is, that the perfection of virtue consists, not in dis- 
charging well the duties of life in its ordinary relations, but in 
fasting, celibacy, punishing the body, and the like. If you desire 
proof of this statement, read the accounts given in the Breviary 
of the most eminent Roman saints — those who have been canon- 
ized by the pope, and who are now worshipped by the faithful ! 
I will quote one or two examples from many that might be given. 
In the Breviary we have the following account of the Virgin 
Rosa: 

" The Virgin Rosa, the first flower of sanctity of South Ame- 
rica, born of Christian parents in Lima, was remarkable even 
from the cradle for the indications she gave of future holiness: 
for the countenance of the infant being wonderfully transformed 
into the likeness of a rose, gave occasion for this name : to whom 
afterwards the Virgin Mother of God added a cognomen, order- 
ing her henceforth to be called, Rosa a Sancta Maria. At the 
age of five years she took the vow of perpetual virginity. When 



EDUCATION IN ROMAN SCHOOLS. 329 

nearer grown, lest she should be forced to marriage by her 
parents, she cut off a most beautiful suit of hair. Being addicted 
to fasting beyond human measure (humanum modum), she passed 
whole lents without bread, and eating daily only four grains 
(granicula) of citron apple. Having taken the habit of the third 
order of St. Dominic, she doubled the former austerities of her 
life. She fastened small needles (acus) in a long and very rough 
girdle of hair : under her veil she wore day and night a crown 
thickly set with prickles. Pursuing the arduous course of St 
Catharine Senensis, she girded her loins with an iron chain 
thrice carried round. She made for herself a bed of knotty logs, 
and filled the open fissures with fragments of earthen pots. She 
made for herself a very narrow seat in an extreme corner of the 
garden, where, absorbed in the contemplation of heavenly things, 
reducing her diminutive body by frequent chastisements, fastings 
and watchings, but flourishing in spirit, she as a victor fearlessly 
trampled down and conquered the spirit of demons in frequent 
conflict. 

" Being terribly agitated with the pains of disease, the insults 
of domestics, and by slanderous tongues, she did not yet com- 
plain — that she was afflicted as she deserved to be. During fif- 
teen years, most miserably pining away every hour with desola- 
tion and thirst of spirit, she bore with fortitude of mind agonies 
more bitter than death itself. After this she began to abound in 
heavenly delights, to be honored with visions, and to melt with 
heavenly ardor. Being wonderfully familiar with her titular 
angel, St. Catharine Senensis, and the Virgin Mother of God, 
amidst constant apparitions, she merited to hear from Christ these 
words: Rose of my hearty be thou my spouse. Finally, Clemens 
X, Pontifex M'aximus, with solemn ceremony placed her on the 
catalogue of holy virgins, after she had been happily taken to the 
paradise of her spouse, rendered illustrious by many miracles 
both before and after death." For 30^A August. 

Here we have, at once, a specimen of the pretended miracles 

with which Rome deludes her votaries, and of what she regards 

as the perfection of virtue. And what were the wonderful virtues 
14* 



330 ROxMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

of St. Rose? Did she feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and 
visit the sick ? No. Was she like Dorcas, of whom we read in 
the Acts of the Apostles, "full of good works and alms-deeds 
which she did ?" Could the poor show the " coats and garments" 
that she made? No. What, then, were her virtues'? Why, 
she took the vow of perpetual virginity at ihe age oi five years! 
a pretty early commencement with vows, especially of this kind ! 
Then she starved herself almost to death ; she put prickles in her 
dress, wore an iron chain around her waist, lay on logs and pot- 
shreds, and finally succeeded in killing herself! These things con- 
stitute what the church of Rome regards as the perfection of virtue ! 

Take another example. Antonius an Egyptian, born of noble 
Christian parents, sold all his estate and gave it to the poor. He 
then aimed to reach the perfection of holiness. He had such an 
abhorrence of heretics, that he would not go nigh one of them. 
" He lay on the ground when sleep became necessary. He 
practiced fasting to such a degree, that he put nothing but salt on 
his bread, and quenched his thirst with water, nor would he eat 
or drink until sunset ; frequently he even abstained from food for 
two days : very often he spent the whole night in prayer." Then 
he was terribly assaulted by the devil, whom he overcame by 
prayer and fasting. Finally " he betook himself to a vast solitude 
in Egypt, where, daily progressing toward Christian perfection, he 
so contemned the devils (w^hose attacks became so much the more 
severe as Antonius became more bold to resist) that he reproached 
them for their weakness." He ultimately became so formida- 
ble to devils that many vexed by them were delivered by simply 
invoking the name of Antonius. 

The Breviary is filled with stories such as these ; and the exam- 
ples of those poor fanatics are placed before the clergy and people, 
for their imitation. It may be said that these stories belong to the 
dark ages, and that the Roman Catholics of this age, and especially 
of this country, have more correct views of the principles of 
virtue. This is a great mistake, as any one can be convinced, 
who will take the trouble to read the account given by Rev. 
Joseph Reeve of the " holy Fathers of the Desert." .^ Reeve is a 



EDUCATION IN ROMAN SCHOOLS. 331 

modern writer, whose history is now circulated as a standard 
work in our country. The edition I have was published in 183.5. 
He gives the same account of St. Anthony which is found in the 
Breviary. He says, " By the help of corporeal mortification he 
subjected his mind and senses in a most perfect manner to the law 
of God." He gives the account of the battles of the saint with 
the devil, which has just been read, " Satan," says he, " envious 
of his happiness, appeared to him in hideous shapes, and by 
various temptations endeavored to deter him from his virtuous 
course. The fiend's malicious endeavors only served to show 
how weak his power is against the true servants of God." The 
same author gives a brief history of St. Pacomius, who, having 
put himself under the direction of one. of those gloomy ascetics 
whose name was Palemon, in a short time " became an eminent 
master of a spiritual life." He founded a monastery on the banks 
of the Nile, and delivered to the monks a written rule, "which," 
says Reeve, " according to the account he himself gave to St. 
Palemon, was brought to him by an angel, and by the observance 
of which, thousands arrived to the highest pitch of Christian per- 
fection." Concerning " those lights of the desert," as Reeve calls 
them, he remarks, " Such are the virtues which faithful history 
has recorded of these holy solitaries ; virtues at which self-con- 
ceited sceptics may sneer, but which more enlightened Christians 
will ever admire and revere. The church no less abounds in 
examples than in the doctrines of evangelical perfection."* Let 
it not be said, when Roman clergymen of the most enlightened 
countries can send forth the like of this, that Romanism is becom- 
ing enlightened and abandoning the superstition of the dark ages. 
Her moral principles are unchanged, and therefore her clergy 
and her more superstitious nuns cannot correctly teach moral 
science. It is truly remarkable, that in their view the perfection 
of virtue, is just that which makes men and women fit for nothing, 
useful neither to themselves nor to others. It would be an instruc- 
tive book that would place in contrast the lives of Bible saints 
and those of Roman saints. How totally dissimilar in almost 

* Church Hist., v. i, pp. 135-139. 



^32 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

every feature. Bible saints let their light shine before men^ that 
they might see their good works, and glorify their Heavenly Fa- 
ther ; Roman saints let their light shine in the deserts^ where they 
could not be seen, and where they could have no influence on men. 
Bible saints, like their Saviour, went about among men " doing 
good;'* Roman saints spent their time in inflicting tortures on 
their bodies, and fighting with imaginary demons who assailed 
them in hideous shapes. 

In this country we find few who seem to aim at the extraordi- 
nary perfection attained by those " lights of the desert." Never- 
theless the Roman clergy among us profess to live a life of celibacy, 
because it is a holier state than that of matrimony ; and nuns, who 
take the vow of " poverty, chastity, and obedience," are but follow- 
ing the same corrupt moral principles which in Asia produced so 
much miserable fanaticism. 

Are you willing, my friends, to have your children taught, that 
to tell small lies and to steal small sums of money, are very trifling 
offenses ; and that if they would attain to high degrees of virtue, 
they must abstain from marriage, which '^ is honorable in all," 
live in extreme poverty, become monks and nuns, and starve and 
chastise their bodies for the good of their souls ? Do you say 
these things are not taught in Roman schools in our country ? — 
But moral science is part, and an important part, of education, 
and if the Romanists teach it at all, they must teach what they 
believe. How can they teach anything else ? Moreover, who can 
tell what impressions are likely to be made upon youthful minds, es- 
pecially on those of young females, by the apparent sanctity and 
feigned happiness of nuns and priests? There is something 
romantic in the idea of retiring from the world to live a life ex- 
clusively devoted to religion — something which takes very strong 
hold of the feelings, and induces many to take vows of which 
they repent through life. 

3. Another department of morals in which Roman teachers 
are no less erroneous than in those just named, is that which 
relates to the observance of the Sabbath. To remember the Sab- 
bath day to keep it holy, is not only an important precept of the 



EDUCATION IN ROMAN SCHOOLS. 333 

Decalogue, but it is one, the great importarijce of which, even as a 
civil institution, has been perceived by enlightened legislators. 
Accordingly there are in most of these United States, laws requir- 
ing the people to lay aside their ordinary pursuits on the holy 
Sabbath, and to observe it as a religious rest. These laws have 
been made, not because our civil rulers were particularly zealous 
in seeking to promote the interests of true religion, but because of 
their conviction^ that the permanency of our government and of our 
free institutions, depends upon the virtue^ as well as the intelli- 
gence, of the people, and that no community can long continue 
to be virtuous who have no Sabbath. There must be a day of 
frequent recurrence, when the people shall feel bound to lay aside 
their worldly pursuits, that opportunity may be given to all to 
obtain that moral and religious instruction by which they may be 
qualified for the proper discharge of their duties. If there be no 
such day of religious rest, who does not know that men, borne 
along by the strong current of wordly pursuits and interests, will 
soon forget or utterly disregard their obligations to God and to 
each other. If the Sabbath were abolished or generally dis- 
regarded, it is more than doubtful whether our government would 
continue through another generation. Show me a neighborhood 
or a village where its sacred claims are disregarded, and I will 
show you a community where intemperance and vice in their mul- 
tiplied forms reign almost uncontrolled. 

But the Sabbath is to be regarded, not simply or chiefly because 
it is necessary to a free government, but because its religious in- 
structions and sacred ordinances tend greatly to promote that 
virtue and religion which lay the foundation of individual and 
domestic happiness. A large proportion of the wretchedness 
endured in our world is caused directly by the evil passions and 
uncontrolled appetites of the sufferer, or of those with whom he 
is immediately connected. I need not attempt to prove to this 
audience, that the tendency and the effect of the Sabbath and its 
sacred services is to dry up the streams of human misery, and to 
impart true, elevated enjoyment to individuals, to families, and to 



334 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

communities. The Christian values the Sabbath still more, 
because of its influence upon the eternal happiness of men. 

It is a fact, that the Sabbath is, in all Roman countries to a 
great extent, a clay of dissipation ; balls, routes, theaters, card- 
playing, and the like, are the amusements of that holy day in all 
those countries. This, as I proved in a preceding lecture, is 
acknowledged by Bishop Trevern. The same disregard of the 
Sabbath is manifested in our own country, to the extent to which 
Popery prevails. Nine years of my life were spent in a town 
where one of their principal colleges is located ; and on no other 
day in the week was there so much noise and sport on the col- 
lege grounds, as on Sabbath afternoon. The prefect, or one of 
the officers of the institution, was out with the students, encour- 
aging them in this open desecration of God's holy day. In that 
college were many sons of Protestant parents. What, suppose 
you, was the effect upon their minds of such examples, set by 
men claiming to be peculiarly holy ? Go to New Orleans, and 
inquire in what part of the city the theaters are open on the Sab- 
bath evening ; and inquire by what influence the shameful cus- 
tom has been adopted, of making the Sabbath the day for mili- 
tary parades. Everybody knows that these things do not result 
from Protestant influence; for, as I have proved, Archbishop 
Eccleston and his clergy abuse Protestants for their strictness in 
keeping, and in laboring to have others keep, the Sabbath. And 
they insist that it is right to spend the Sabbath, after the morning 
service, in any amusements the people may happen to fancy. 

If, then, parents desire to have their children taught to trample 
under foot the holy Sabbath, there is no place to which they can 
send them better adapted to produce such a result than a Roman 
school. But if they would have them regard God's command, 
and remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, let them never 
place them under the influence of Roman teachers. 

4th. But the Jesuits seem now likely to become the principal 
teachers in the Roman schools in our own couutry. Their estab- 
lishments have recently been broken up in France ; and we may 
expect quite an abundant supply of that order in the United 



EDUCATION IN ROMAN SCHOOLS. 335 

States. Indeed the number is already large ; and even now the 
children of many Protestants, and of a still larger number of 
American citizens, not professors of religion, are under their tui- 
tion. We have in our own city a college, extensively patronized 
by all classes and by different denominations, which is under the 
control of Jesuits. It may be well, therefore, to enquire into the 
moral principles of this mysterious society. 

In 1540 a bull of constitution of the order of Jesuits was 
obtained from Paul III, by Don Inigo Lopez de Ricalde, the 
youngest son of the noble house of Loyola, who became the gen- 
eral of the order. He had been severely wounded in the year 
1521, in the defense of Pampeluna against the French. Having 
little hope of perfect recovery, he abandoned the pursuit of mili- 
tary fame, and, induced, it is said, by reading a volume of the 
Lives of the Saints, he sought distinction in the regions of spiritual 
knight-errantry. The society founded by him, in addition to the 
thfSe usual vows of 'poverty^ chastity^ and obedience^ came under 
a fourth, viz : of unlimited submission and unconditional obedience 
to the 'pope. The organization of the order for effective operation 
is most complete, and the training of each soldier of this chosen 
army of the pope, is more thorough than that of any army of 
ancient or modern times. "Talk of drilling and discipline !" 
says Dr. Duff, " why, the drilling and the discipline which gave 
to Alexander the men that marched from Macedon to the Indies ; 
to Caesar, the men that marched in triumph from Rome to the 
wilds of Caledonia; to Hannibal the men that marched in 
triumph from Carthage to Rome ; to Napoleon, the men whose 
achievements surpassed in brilliancy "the united glories of the 
soldiers of Macedon, of Carthage, and of Rome ; and to Welling- 
ton, the men who smote unto the dust the very flower of Napoleon's 
chivalry ; — why, the drilling and the discipline of all these com- 
bined, cannot, in point of stern, rigid, and protracted severity, for 
a moment be compared to the drilling and discipline which fitted 
and moulded men for becoming full members of the militant in- 
stitute of the Jesuits."* 

* Let those who desire to know something of the true character of the 



336 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

The Jesuits, in consequence of their political intrigues, and their 
immoral principles and practices, were expelled successively by- 
all the governments of Europe. " Wearied at length," says Dr. 
Dufij *' and worn out by their unscrupulous rapacity and all- 
grasping ambition — their treachery and stratagems — their se- 
ductions and briberies — their intrigues and cabals — their laxation 
of public morals and disturbance of social order — their fomenting 
of seditions, disloyalties and rebellions — their instigating massacres, 
and parricidal cruelties, and royal assassinations ; — the monks and 
courtiers, judges and civil magistrates, churches and public schools, 
princes and emperors of all nations in Europe, Asia, Africa, and 
America^all, all successively united their efforts in sweeping them 
clean away, and causing their institute to perish from off this 
earth, and from under these heavens." Finally Pope Clement 
XIV, was constrained to suppress the order in July 1773 — an 
act which cost him his life ! For in a short period he was poison- 
ed by these his implacable enemies. But in 1814, Pius Vll^re- 
instated this dangerous order in all its privileges, and now it is 
spreading its baleful influence over the whole world. Their re- 
peated expulsions from Roman Catholic governments, and their 
suppression by the pope, afford sufficient evidence of their danger- 
ous character. But let us look at a few unexceptional testimonies 
concerning the moral principles of the order. 

In 1642, an assembly of Romish clergy at Nantes, denounced 
a work by the Jesuit Bauni, " as calculated to encourage licen- 
tiousness and the corruption of manners; as violating natural 
equity, and the rights of man, and tolerating blasphemy, usury, 
simony, and many other enormous crimes, as offenses of no mag- 
nitude." In 1643, the Romish university of Paris declared 
themselves ready to prove, that " there is no article in religion 
which the Jesuits have not corrupted, and do not daily corrupt, 
by erroneous novelties ; that the scholastic theology has been de- 
Jesuits and their principles, read the little work of Dr. Duff on this sub- 
ject. His authorities are not Protestants, but Romanists, and the Jesuits 
themselves. The picture drawn from those sources is the darkest in human 
* history. 



EDUCATION IN ROMAN SCHOOLS. 337 

praved by the dangerous opinions of their writers, who have had 
the approbation, or at least the connivance of the whole society ; 
that Christian morality had become a body of problematical opin- 
ions, since their society had undertaken, by a general understand- 
ing, to accommodate it to the luxury of the age ; that the laws of 
God had been sophisticated by their unheard of subtleties ; that 
there was no longer any difference between vice and virtue ; that 
by a base indulgence, they promised impunity to the most fla- 
grant crimes ; that there was no conscience, however erroneous, 
which might not obtain peace, if it would confide in them ; and 
that, in short, their doctrines, inimical to all order, had equally 
resisted the power of kings and the authority of the hierarchy ; 
that if the light which God had placed in all reasonable minds, 
in order to show the distinction between purity and iniquity, 
were so far extinguished that such a pernicious theology could 
be universally received — in that case deserts and forests would be 
preferable to cities ; and society with wild beasts, who have only 
their natural arms, would be better than with men who, in addi- 
tion to the violence of their passions, Vv^ould be instructed by this 
dodriTie of dcmls to dissimulate and feign, and to counterfeit the 
characters of intimate friends, in order to destroy others with the 
greater impunity." In 1762, the Parliament of Popish France 
gave the following decision : ^' The court has ordained, that the 
passages extracted from the books of one hundred and forty-sev- 
en Jesuit authors having been verified, a collected copy shall be 
presented to his Majesty, that he may be made acquainted with 
the wickedness of the doctrine constantly held by the Jesuits, from 
the institution of their society to the present moment, together 
with the approbation of their theologians, the permission of supe- 
riors and generals, and the praise of other members of the said 
society — a doctrine authorizing robbery, lying, perjury, impunity 
— all passions and all crimes ; inculcating homicide, parricide, 
and regicide ; overturning Religion, in order to substitute in hor 
stead Superstition; and thereby sanctioning magic, blasphemy, 
irreligion, and idolatry. And his majesty shall be most humbly 
entreated to consider what results from instruction so pernicious." 
15 



338 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

Would such charges have ever been made against the Jesuits, 
by Romanists themselves, if their moral code were not most in- 
famous ? I have time now to point out only*two or three of their 
m.axims by way of proving conclusively, that the charges are 
well-founded. The first I mention is, the direction of the intention. 
A man, for example, gives or accepts a challenge to fight a duel ; 
and may do so, and even kill his opponent, provided he intend 
not to take revenge, but to defend his honor, his goods, <fec ! — 
SancheZj one of the Jesuit authors quoted by Paschal, himself a 
Papist, says — ^' It is perfectly reasonable to say, that a man may 
fight a duel to save his life, his honor, or his goods, if there be 
any considerable quantity of them, when it is apparent that his 
adversary has an evil design unjustly to rob him of them by 
suits at law and chicanery ; and there is no other way of pre- 
serving them." Escobar says, -'• If your enemy be disposed to 
hurt you, you ought not to wish for his death through hatred, but 
you may do it to avoid injury." Gasper Hurtardo says, ''An 
incumbent may, without being guilty of mortal crime, wish for 
the death of the person who is a pensioner upon his benefice ; 
and a son for that of his father, and rejoice in it whenever it hap- 
pens, provided that it is only on account of the property that ac- 
crues to him, not from any personal hatred." ■ 

Another principle of Jesuit morality is the doctrine of probabil- 
ity. It is this: When, on any great moral question, different 
opinions are entertained by any celebrated casuists, of which opin- 
ions one is more probable, and in conformity with the law — the 
other less probable, but more agreeable to our desires, we may 
lawfully put the latter in practice. Fiiliucius says, " The au- 
thority of one good and learned doctor renders an opinion proba- 
ble." Henrique says, a scrupulous mr.n continues safe, if he pre- 
fers- against his scruples, that which he considers probable, al- 
though he may think that another opinion is more probable." — 
Paul Laymann says, "Of two contradictory probable opinions, 
touching the legality or illegality of any human action, every one 
may follow, in practice or in action, that which he should prefer ; 
although it may appear to the agent himself less probable in the- 



EDUCATION IN ROMAN SCHOOLS. 339 

ory." The same author says, " A learned person may give con- 
trary advice to different persons, according to contrary probable 
opinions ; whilst he still preserves discretion and prudence." — 
Louis de Scildare says, "If a subject thinks probably that a tax 
has been unjustly imposed, he is not bound to pay it." Grego- 
ry of Valencia says, " If the judge shall think each opinion equal- 
ly probable, for the sake of his friend he may lawfully pro- 
nounce sentence according to the opinion which is more favora- 
ble to the interests of that friend. He may, moreover, with the 
intent to serve his friend, at one time judge acccording to one 
opinion, and at another time, according to the contrary opinion, 
provided only that no scandal result from the opinion." 

A third principle of Jesuit morality is, the lawfulness of men- 
tal reservation. Sanchez says, " A person may take an oath that 
he has not done such a thing, though in fact he has, by saying to 
himself it was not done on a certain specified day, or before he 
was born, or by concealing any other circumstance which gives 
another meaning to the statement." Sanchez and Filliutius say, 
that after saying in an audible voice, / swear that I did not do 
this J you may add inwardly to-day ; or after affirming aloud / 
swear J yfJU may repeat in a whisper / say ; and resuming the 
former tone, — / did not do it, Escobar says, " Promises are not 
obligatory when a man has no intention of being bound to fulfil 
them; and it seldom happens that he has that intention, unless he 
confirms it by an oath or bond, so that when he merely says, 1 
will do itj it is to be understood, if he do not change his mind; 
for he did not intend by what he promised to deprive himself of 
his liberty." 

With regard to the facilities afforded by Jesuit morality for vio- 
lating the seventh commandment, 1 will only quote the language 
of Dr. Duff " Hitherto I have been enabled to proceed with 
separate quotations to show how every commandment of the Dec- 
alogue may be violated with impunity. But there is one, as to 
which I must beg to be excused for not entering on it ac all. It 
is the seventh. How to violate it in its letter and spirit — in thought, 
word, and deed — in every imaginable, and, apart from Jesuit im- 



340 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

aginations, every unimaginable form — is pointed out, in their writ- 
ings, with a minuteness, a loathsomeness, and a pruriency, com- 
pared with which the most filthy passages in the grossest of the 
heathen poets and satirists bear the stamp and impress of relative 
refinement. It is, in fact, a bottomless abyss of obscenities, nu- 
dities, criminal liberties, and defiling turpitudes — an abyss from 
which I most gladly hasten away, as from one whose very brink 
in thickly fringed all around with pollution." 

The time would fail me to do anything like justice to this dark 
subject. Let me earnestly request those who are willing to know 
the true character of the morality of the Jesuits, to read Dr. Dufl^'s 
little work on this subject, and especially the Provincial Letters 
of Blaise Paschal, who was a Papist of the Jansenist order, and 
an elegant writer. From this work, says Dugald Stuart, " Vol- 
taire, notwithstanding his strong prejudices against the author, 
dates the fixatmi of the French language, of which the same 
excellent judge has said, ' Moliere's best comedies do not excel 
them in wit, nor the compositions of Bossuet in sublimity.' " 

And are these the men to whom American and even Chris- 
tian parents are willing to entrust the training of their children ? 
Are such men to have a principal agency in fixing in their minds 
those principles of action by which they are to be governed 
through life? It is too true, that many, unacquainted certainly 
-with their principles, have placed their children under their with- 
ering influence. Far better would it be to commit their educa- 
tion to men who denounce all religion, than to those who, in the 
name of Jesus, teach men how to perpetrate the worst crimes with- 
out suflTering from the lashings of a guilty conscience. How can 
such men teach mental and moral science ? It may be said the Jes- 
uits do not, in this country, avow the abominable sentiments at- 
tributed to their order. True, they are not likely to destroy their 
influence by an avowal of principles which are held in abhor- 
rence in this Protestant country; but their concealment, and 
their pretended sanctity only enable them the more easily to de- 
stroy the morals of the youth committed to them. It is impos- 
sible that the influence of such men shall be other than most 



EDUCATION IN ROMAN SCHOOLS. 341 

mischievous. It has been so from the origin of the order ; and 
it will be so, while it has in existence. 

3. Roman institutions v/ill never teach History correctly. — 
For more than twelve centuries past, the pope has been a tempo- 
ral prince, and has used his spiritual power for the purposes of 
self-aggrandizement, and the extension of the power, wealth, and 
influence of Rome. He has been quite as busily engaged as his 
cotemporaries in the intrigues, civil combinations and alliances that 
form a considerable part of the history of the ages preceding the 
Reformation. The persecutions of the pope and his clergy, too, 
constitute a prominent part of the history of the past. Who, for 
example, could write the history of Spain, of Portugal, and of It- 
aly, without giving prominence to the horrid inquisition, its offi- 
cers, its dungeons, its tortures, and its autoa da fe ? Or who could 
write the history of that wonderful people, the Waldenses, with- 
out telling of the long-continued, exterminating persecutions of 
them, set on foot and kept up by the popes and general coun- 
cils ? Or who will ever be able to write the history of our world 
in the 16th century, without making the Reformation a most 
prominent theme, and showing how the pope and his clergy la- 
bored to crush the spirit of liberty which began then to manifest 
itself, and to claim the right to think and investigate, without be- 
ing trammeled by the decrees of popes and councils of the dark 
ages? Who can write the history of England, without record- 
ing the persecutions of " bloody Mary ? " 

And is it to be expected that the Roman clergy will allow 
these things to be presented in their true light, before the minds 
of the youth committed to their charge ? Why, the history of 
the past must be in the view of every man, an unanswerable re- 
futation of Rome's pretended infallibility. No man can believe 
the claim well-founded, who, before his prejudices are excited, 
reads the history of the doings of Rome. 

It may be said, Protestants, too, may have reason for conceal- 
ment ; because the churches to which they severally belong have 
not always done right. I answer, Protestants do not claim infal- 
libility for their churches. They may admit that they have erred. 



342 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

and they may record their errors as a lesson to the present, and 
to future generations. There is little or no temptation, therefore, 
to them to falsify history. 

4. Roman schools will never teach the principles of civil and 
religious liberty, on which the free institutions of our country 
are founded. The fundamental principles of Popery, as I have 
proved in preceding lectures, are at Avar with liberty of con- 
science and the freedom of the press. Rome has ever been found 
the firm supporter of despotism, and the irreconcilable enemy of 
liberty. The Roman clergy of our country are, many of them, 
foreigners, who secured their education under the prevailing spi- 
rit of despotism ; and those who have been educated in our own 
country have sat at the feet of foreigners, and imbibed their prin- 
ciples. They have certainly received the principles of Popery, 
and cannot, therefore, hold the principles which are dear to every 
true American. In the organization of the church of Rome there 
is nothing democratic ; not one popular principle is admitted. In 
her legislation, and in the administration of her government, the 
voice of the people is never heard, directly or indirectly. The 
pope is an absolute monarch whose signature fixes upon the dog- 
mas of the church the seal of infallibility ; who dispenses those 
"heavenly treasures— indulgences"— to the people as to him seems 
good; and whose decisions are laws. The cardinals are his 
chosen counsellors, who aid him in carrying out the principles of 
despotism which characterize the system. The bishops of every 
grade are his lords, who meet in general council at his call, 
or who hold their provincial councils, and humbly submit 
their deliberations to be approved or condemned by "His Holi- 
ness." The priests are the humble servants of the pope and his 
coadjutors who move at his bidding. The inferior orders and 
the people hear the law, believe, and obey. How can persons, 
whose whole characters are moulded under such despotism, teach 
the great principles of civil and religious liberty? How can it 
be expected that men who dare not say one word against the in- 
tolerance of Italy, Austria, Spain, Portugal, France, Mexico, and 
South America, will boldly and sincerely advocate the fundamental 



EDUCATION IN ROMAN SCHOOLS, 343 

principles of our noble constitution, which guaranties to every 
American citizen the right to worship God according to the dic- 
tates of his own conscience ? It would be just as reasonable to 
expect a true American to go to Austria, and, as a teacher of 
youth, to inculcate the despotic principles of that government ; or 
to Spain, and to plead for the restoration of the Inqusition. Will 
individual priests and nuns fly in the face of their Lord, Gregory 
XVI, and inculcate the principles of freedom of speech and of 
the press, denounced by him as contrary to the principles of the 
church, and ruinous in their consequences? Can men who, 
like Archbishop Eccleston, of Baltimore, denounce a convention, 
whose object is to promote the better observance of the Sabbath, 
as contrary to the Constitution of these United States, hold and 
teach the principles of that Constitution ? 

I have proved that the moral principles of Rome, and especially 
of the Jesuits, are rotten to the very core. Let me now say, that 
there exists not on earth a government so absolutely despotic as 
that of the order of Jesuits. '* The grand principle," says Dr. 
Duff, "which pervadeSj animates, and cements into one firm and 
continuous chain the entire course of probationary exercises, is 
the reiterated, the incessant, the perpetual inculcation of a blind, 
implicit, unquestioning obedience to the monarchical general of 
the order, or to the superior acting in his stead or name. In 
every conceivable variety of shape and form his will is declared 
to be law^, sole and supreme law — his will is virtually that of om- 
nipotence. To him must the inclinations, the reason, and the 
conscience of every member be unconditionally surrendered." 
in the constitutions of the order, which, after being long con- 
cealed, were dragged to light in France, in 1761, the novice is 
exhorted to " devote himself to the service of God, leaving the care 
of all other things to his superior, who doubtless holds the place of 
Christ our LordJ^ Again, novices are to "desire with perfect 
concurrence to be guided by them (their superiors), and not wish- 
ing to be led by their own judgment, except it agrees with that 
of those who are to them instead of Christ our LordJ^ Again — 
" It is especially conducive to advancement, nay, even necessary, 



344 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY, 

tnat all yield themselves to perfect obedience, regarding the supe- 
rior as Christ the Lord, and submitting to him with inward reve- 
rence and affection. Let them obey, not only in the outward per- 
formance of what he enjoins, entirely, promptly, resolutely, and 
with all due humility, without excuses or murmurs, even though 
he order things hard to be done, and repugnant to their own 
sense ; but let them also strive to acquire perfect resignation and 
denial of their own will and judgment to that which the superior 
wills and judges (where sin is not perceived) — the will and judg- 
ment of the superior being set before them as the rule of their 
will and judgment." Once more — "Let every one persuade 
himself that they who live under obedience should permit them- 
selves to be moved and directed, under divine Providence, by their 
superiors, just as if they were a corpse^ which allotos itself to be 
moved and handled in any way ; or as the staff of an old man^ 
which serves him wherever or in whatever thing he who holds it 
in his hand pleases to use it "—'^persuading themselves that every- 
thing is just, suppressing every repugnant thought and judgment 
of their own in a certain obedience," &-c. And lest any one might 
suppose, says Dr. Duff, that the/^-waHntroduction of any apparent- 
ly exceptionary clauses, non-obligation of committing sin by way of 
obedience, formed any real or substantial limitation, it is expressly 
added, by way of explanation, that the constitution of the society 
does not " involve an obligation to commit sin, mortal or venial, 
unless the superior command them in the name of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, or in virtue of holy obedience j which shall be done in 
those cases or persons, wherein it shall be jijdged that it shall 
greatly conduce to the particular good of each, or to the general 
advantage." 

The Romish King of Portugal, in a manifesto addressed to his 
bishops in 1759, gives the following description of the principles 
of the Jesuits. "In order to form the union, the consistency, and 
the strength of the society, there should be a government not only 
monarchical, but so sovereign, so absolute, so despotic, that even 
the provincials themselves should not have it in their power, by 
any act of theirs, to resist or retard the execution of the orders of 



EDUCATION IN ROMAN SCHOOLS. 345 

the general. By this legislative, inviolablej and despotic power — 
by the profound devotedness of the subjects of this company to 
mysterious laws with which they are not themselves acquainted — 
by the blind and passive obedience by which they are compelled to 
execute, without hesitation or reply, whatever their superiors com- 
mand — this society is at once become the most consolidated and 
powerful body, and, at the same time, the greatest and most enormous 
of abuses, to which there is an urgent necessity that the church 
and state should apply the most prompt and efficacious remedy." 
Robertson gives the following account of the organization and 
principles of the order: "But Loyola, full of the ideas of implicit 
obedience, which he had derived from his military profession, ap- 
pointed that the government of his order should be purely mon- 
archical. A general, chosen for life by deputies from the several 
provinces, possessed power that was supreme and independent, 
extending to every person, and to every case. He, by his sole 
authority, nominated provincials, rectors, and every other officer 
employed in the government of the society, and could remove 
them at pleasure. In him was vested the sovereign administra- 
tion of the revenues and funds of the order. Every member be- 
longing to it was at his disposal ; and by his uncontrollable man- 
date, he could impose on them any task, or employ them in what 
service soever he pleased. To his commands they were required 
not only to yield outward obedience, but to resign up to him the 
inclinations of their own wills, and the sentiments of their own 
understandings. They were to listen to his injunctions, as if they 
had been uttered by Christ himself Under his direction they 
were to be mere passive instruments, like clay in the hands of the 
potter ; or, like dead carcasses, incapable of resistance. Such a 
singular form of policy could not fail to impress its character on 
all the members of the order, and to give a peculiar force to all 
its operations. There is not in the annals of manki7id any ex- 
arrfple of such perfect despotism, exercised not only over monks- 
shut up in the cells of a convent, hut over men dispersed among 
all the nations of the earth* Even Reeve, the Romish historian, 

* Charles V. Book vi, pp. '288-289. 



346 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

while zealously defending the Jesuits, states that ^* their form of 
government was monarchical, vested in a general chosen by the 
body for life ;" and that " prompt obedience, when there appeared 
no sin in the execution, was their characteristic virtue,^^* We 
have already seen how easily they perform, and teach others to 
perform, the most atrocious acts, without regarding themselves 
as sinning. 

Are these the men by whose instructions the characters of 
American youth are to be formed ? Are they to inspire them 
with the spirit of liberty, and prepare them to be the worthy de- 
scendants of the patriots of '76? Will they teach them, whilst 
themselves under the most absolute of all despotism, to prize and 
preserve the free institutions of our happy country ? 

5. It is a fact^ an important fact, that Roman schools are not 
designed to promote thorough education^ but to make converts to 
popery^ and to enrich the clergy and the church. The Roman 
clergy are aware that their cause has nothing to gain by that 
spirit of free Inquiry generated by a thorough education. The 
man who has been accustomed to inquire into reasons and evi- 
dences on all other subjects, will not readily found his religious 
faith upon the dicta of the clergy. He will desire to be able to 
give a reason for the hope that is in him. 

But if they are indeed the ardent friends of education, why do 
they, to so great an extent, neglect those countries vi^here their 
faith is established? With great zeal, and at great expense, they 
are establishing in our country colleges and schools of every grade 
for the education of both males and females. Why is not equal 
zeal manifested in popular education in Italy, Spain, Portugal, 
Mexico, and South America ? It is a notorious fact, that in all 
these countries the masses of the people are uneducated and are 
grossly ignorant. We know that the people of Mexico, where 
popery has prevailed for ages past, are to this day semi-savages, 
possessing neither intelligence nor virtue sufficient to sustain a 
free government. There is not in Mexico one literary institution 
of a high character ; and although it is very common to find the 

* Hist, of Ch., V, ii. p 257 



EDUCATION IN ROMAN SCHOOLS. 347 

lower classes of the people able to read, there are no such institu- 
tions for general education as the Roman clergy are so zealous in 
establishing in our country. Waddy Thomps.on, Esq., says — 
" The only institution of any character in the city (of Mexico) is the 
Mineria — the College of Mines, as its name implies. * * * The 
professorships are very few, chiefly connected with physical science, 
and the chairs filled by persons of extremely moderate attainments. 
The philosophical apparatus is altogether contemptible. * * * 
The University, which was founded in 1531, is in a declining 
condition, if indeed it is not already extinct. There are some 
other colleges as they are called, but they are scarcely respectable 
primary schools."* The same writer says, " There are scarcely 
any of those charitable institutions to which we are accustomed 
in all our principal cities. There are more of these, I have no 
doubt, in either of the cities of Boston or Philadelphia than in 
Mexico." How shall we account for the great zeal of the Roman 
clergy and of their allies in Europe, for establishing schools and 
benevolent institutions in this enlightened country, and their entire 
indifference to these same things in Mexico and other Romish 
countries ? It would not even be necessary to send to Europe, 
as do the clergy of the United States, for funds ; for the Roman 
clergy of Mexico possess a large proportion of all the wealth of 
that country. " I have heard intelligent men express the opinon," 
says Thompson, ^' that one fourth of the property of the country is 
in the hands of the priesthood ; and, instead of diminishing, is 
continually increasing."! 

' The truth is, it is not the zeal of the Roman clergy in the cause 
of general education, which causes them to establish in our country 
so many schools. But there is among us a public sentiment in 
favor of education. Parents will educate their children, and if 
they be educated by protestant teachers, few of them will ever 
embrace popery. This the clergy well understand. Moreover, 
the great principles of the Reformation are so generally received ; 
it is so universally believed, that the Scriptures are the only in- 
fallible guide in religious faith ; that the clergy find it extremely 

* Recollections of Ivlexico, pp. 147, 148. t Ibid, p. 41. 



348 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

difficult to make converts of adults by preaching. Hence, their 
great anxiety to monopolize, as far as possible, the education of 
our youth. 

I have said the design of Roman schools is not to give a thorough 
education. I have not had the opportunity of forming a judgment 
of those established in this city ; but I had, during nine years^ a 
fair opportunity of ascertaining the literary character of their most 
celebrated schools in Kentucky. I have repeatedly received pupils 
from their nunneries, whilst myself conducting a female institu- 
tion ; and in every instance their minds had been injured rather 
than improved. I have attended their examinations, and found 
them, notwithstanding the special previous preparation, very super- 
ficial. I have known young men who were impatient to finish 
their literary course, leave other colleges and go to St. Joseph's, 
at Bardstown, because they could graduate there at least twelve 
months sooner. Some years since, two young m.en, after taking 
the course, and one of them receiving his diploma at that institu- 
tion, went to an eastern college ; and the young graduate was not 
able to enter, without first studying for several months under a 
tutor! Another fact it may be worth while to record. Several 
years ago, I had occasion, as the editor of a weekly paper, to make 
some remarks not very favorable to the literary character of St. 
Joseph's college. Those remarks were brought before a literary 
society of that institution ; whereupon several resolutions intended 
to be offensive were passed, and sent to me with a request to pub- 
lish them. The document which was drav/n up by a committee, 
one of whom had graduated, and others received their diplomas a 
few weeks afterwards, was introduced, as a paper emanating from 
a literary society should be, with a Latin motto, which read as 
follows : 

^ li qui vivunt dominibus vitreis, caveunt quo modo lapides mittere.*' 
To this Latin, which is not Latin, and to the resolutions passed, 
which were equally defective, both in orthography and syntax, I 
referred the public, for evidence conclusive that I had not under- 
valued the literary merits of the college. The afi^air caused some 
amusement in the town and much excitement in the college. 



EDUCATION IN ROMAN SCHOOLS. 349 

The truth is, the Roman clergy of this country have, by much 
boasting, gained a reputation for learning, which generally they 
do not deserve. I know of no denomination of professing Chris- 
tians, whose clergy are educated men, that does not possess a 
larger share both of talent and learning. 

But whatever may be the defects of Roman institutions, they 
are certainly adapted admirably to accomplish one chief object 
for which they are established, viz : to make converts to 'pojpery. 
I have said that children and youth can never be very successfully 
taught by instructors who fail to secure their respect and affection. 
The great pretensions of Roman instructors to superior knowledge, 
is adapted to secure the former, and their special kindness to the 
children of protestants, whose conversion they anxiously seek, is 
extremely likely to accomplish the latter. Young girls, far from 
their parents and friends, naturally become strongly attached to the 
nuns, who, never losing sight of the great object — their conver- 
sion — lavish kindness upon them ; and youth of every class, in- 
experienced and unsuspecting, readily become strongly attached 
to their kind instructors. How natural for them to conclude that 
they are the best people in the world, and that their religion has 
made them so ; and, of course, that their religion is the best in the 
world. How natural that they should set down all that is said 
against popery as misrepresentation and slander, and that they 
should feel indignant at those who oppose it, and who seem to them 
to persecute their respected and beloved teachers. In this state of 
mind, who does not see that they are already more than half 
converted? 

And then there is in the priests and nuns such an appearance 
of sanctity. To those unacquainted with true religion there was 
something very imposing in the broad phylacteries of the ancient 
Pharisees, in their frequent fasts, their many ablutions, their tithing 
of mint, anise, and cummin, and the like. There is even a greater 
show of sanctity in our priests and nuns. Will your children see 
through all this show of piety, and reject it? If they do, as some 
more advanced in ^^ears may, is there no reason to fear that they 
will feel a contempt for all religion, and become confirmed infidels ? 



350 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

But the Romanists claim for their religion a venerable an- 
tiquity ; and they have a thousand stories to tell of saints, and 
miracles, and the like, well adapted to excite the minds of youth, 
and make lasting impressions upon them. Why, you may tell 
your children stories of ghosts and apparitions, till they will be 
afraid to sleep alone in a dark room. There is something in 
human nature that lays strong hold of such things ; and the im- 
pressions made by them are not readily eradicated. Then, at 
every turn, the images of those wonder-working saints are pre- 
sented before the eyes of the pupils in Roman schools ; and they 
see the devout priests and nuns, with awful solemnity, kneeling 
before them in prayer. Can all this, with all the pomp and show 
of Roman worship, be constantly witnessed by the susceptible 
minds of youth, without making a deep impression ? 

Another fact is worthy of special consideration, viz : the chil- 
dren and youth placed in Roman schools, are required to attend 
and assist at all the public religious exercises. In the prospectus 
of one of their female institutions I find the following : " Pupils 
of every religious denomination are admitted into the institution. 
No improper influence is ever to be used to bias the religious 
principles of the young ladies, nor will any of the scholars be 
allowed to embrace the Catholic religion, without a written or 
verbal permission from their parents. For the sake of order^ all 
the hoarders are required to observe the general regulations of ex- 
terior worship,''^^ The audience will please mark the language 
here employed. The conductors of this institution do not say 
that they will exert no infMence to bias the religious opinions of 
their pupils ; but " no improper influence " is to be used. What 
kind of influence do they regard as improper? On this point 
they are silent ; and we may content ourselves with the assurance 
they have given, that they will use no influence for the conversion 
of Protestant children, lohich they regard as improper ! But they 
assure the public that they will not allow any of their pupils to 
become Roman Catholics, without permission from their parents. 
A poor consolation this,^when they have filled the minds of ehild- 
* Cath. Almanac for 1846, p 96. 



EDUCATION IN ROMAN SCHOOLS. 351 

ren with their superstitions, and excited their strongest preju- 
dices against the faith of their parents. Mark the fact, however, 
that " for the sake of order, all the boarders are required to ob- 
serve the general regulations of exterior worship," — to unite in 
their prayers and devotions. 

In the prospectus of St. Gabriel's College, Vincennes, la., we 
find a similar regulation : " There is no interference whatever 
with the religious belief of the pupils ; but for the sake of order, 
they are expected to comply with the external forms of Catholic 
worship, which is the religion professed by the members of this 
college." In the prospectus of St. Mary's Female Academy, it 
is stated, that "the members of the Protestant denominations 
are only required to assist with propriety and respect at the pub- 
lic exercises of the Catholic religion." * Such are the regula- 
tions in all Roman schools, as far as my information extends. In 
view of these regulations I have two remarks to make : 

1st. Every intelligent Protestant believes a considerable part 
of the religious worship of Roman Catholics to be unscriptural 
and idolatrous ; for example, the worship of the consecrated 
wafer, the worship of saints and angels, praying before images, 
and the like. No enlightened and conscientious Protestant could 
be induced to participate in such worship, even externally. The 
three Hebrews preferred being thrown into the fiery furnace, to 
conforming externally to the worship ordained by Nebuchad- 
nezzar. Primitive Christians preferred death to throwing a hand- 
ful of incense on a pagan altar. What right, then, I emphati- 
cally ask, have Protestant parents to place their children where 
they are obliged, at least externally, to commit idolatry? "What 
right have they to compel their children to do what they them- 
selves could not, and would not do ? What right have they to 
compel them to sin against God ? Is this the way to train them 
up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord ? I appeal to 
those parents who do not profess to be religious, but who do not 
believe the Roman worship to be scriptural. Will they not 
admit, that if there is any one thing in which sincerity should be 

* Catholic Almanac for 1846, pp. 118-125. 



352 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

preserved, and in which our external conduct should accord 
with the convictions of the mind, the worship of God is that 
thing ? Why, then, will you compel your children to conform 
to religious worship which you feel constrained to tell them is 
not true and not right ? Can such a course be adopted without 
serious injury to the moral principles of children? Can parents 
who place their children under such influences, wonder if they 
become decided Papists 1 

2d. The children of Protestants are not only compelled to 
unite in religious worship which is unscriptural and idolatrous ; 
but they are obliged to hear all that may be said against the reli- 
gion of the Bible, and in favor of Romanism — all the gross mis- 
representations of the Reformers and the Reformation, and all 
the wonderful stories about saints and ghosts, which may be in- 
troduced at the religious services they attend. Are their minds 
sufficiently stored with religious instruction to resist all this ? Is 
there no danger that convictions will be fastened on their minds 
that can never be eradicated? The Sabbath, too, which their 
parents have taught them to remember to keep it holy, is now to 
be spent in idolatrous worship and in hearing the worst religious 
errors plausibly set forth and defended. I know not how Pro- 
testant parents, who have any regard for their own religious obli- 
gations, or for the moral and religious training of their children, 
can place them in the midst of such influences. I can account 
for their conduct only by supposing them unacquainted with the 
real character of Roman institutions. 

Another important fact which I must not omit to mention, is 
this : Whilst every possible influence is thrown around the child- • 
ren of Protestants to convert them to popery, they are as care- 
fully guarded against every influence that might serve to strength- 
en early impressions in favor of the religion of their parents. They 
are, to a great extent, cut off'from all intercourse with Protestants ; 
and they are not permitted to have a single book which has not 
been approved by the president or superior. In the regulations 
of Georgetown College, District of Columbia, I find the follow- 
ing: " All books, of whatever kind, must, however, be submitted 



EDUCATION IN ROMAN SCHOOLS. 353 

to the supervision of the prefect of the schools, without whose per- 
mission none will be allowed circulation in the college."* In 
Mount St. Mary's college, near Emmitsburg, " No books are al- 
lowed to circulate among the students which have not received 
the president's approval." f In the Academy of the Ursuline 
Nuns, the Prospectus says, " The scholars will not be permitted 
to bring any books, except such as are used in the school, and 
books of devotion." J Among- the rules of St. John^s college I 
find the following : " No books will be allowed circulation among 
the students, which have not been previously submitted to the su- 
pervision and received the approval of either the president of the 
college, or the prefect of studies." ^ 

The children of Protestants, you perceive, especially if they are 
boarders, are wholly under the influence of Romanism. Parents 
cannot put in their hands such religious books as they desire them 
to read, such, for example, as Doddridge's Rise and Progress of 
Religion in the Soul, Baxter's Saint's Rest, D'Aubigne's History 
of the Reformation. Such books could never receive the appro- 
bation of presiding officers in those schools. And it is extreme- 
ly questionable whether the Bible is not a prohibited book. Cer- 
tainly the Protestant Bible is. Some years ago, Dr. Henry Ri- 
ley, a most excellent man, v^ith whom I am well acquainted, who 
had been a student in Georgetown College, published a particu- 
lar account of his stay in that institution, and of his conversion to 
Popery. Among other things he stated the following facts: 
" Previous to my leaving home, my mother (she w^as a Presbyte- 
rian) gave me a small Bible, with the hope that I would make 
good use of it. But her hopes were all in vain — for on reaching 
the college our trunks were subjected to rigid inspection, and ev- 
ery thing removed beyond our control, except such books or things 
as they in their wisdom saw fit to entrust us with. Several of 
my books I never afterwards saw — what became of them is bet- 
ter known to others than to me. Fathers Grassie, Kohlman, 
McEIroy, &.c., can, no doubt, give some account of them. Res- 
titution of unlawfully borrowed property is enjoined by these 

* Cath. Almanac for 1846, p. 77. f Ibid., p. 78. X Ibid., p. 97. $ Ibid., p. 111. 
15* 



354 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

spiritual fathers, on those who in their confessions acknowledge 
the commission of such a crime. * * * But it may be said, 
the books were of a demoralizing character. They were such 
as a solicitous parent had given me, and one was what God had 
given to a ruined world for its salvation. I occasionally saw one 
of these books in the hands of a novice (candidate for Holy Or- 
ders, or rather for full admission into the society), and though I 
recognized it as mine, I dared not whisper that it was.'* Instead 
of the books which a pious mother had put in the hands of her 
son, he says, " prayer-books, catechisms, &c., were put into my 
hands ; and it was but a short time before I avowed myself a de- 
cided, determined Catholic." Ere long, he tells us, he "had ful- 
ly imbibed the sentiments which the officers of the college so in- 
dustriously endeavored to impress on the minds of all, that out 
of the pale of the Catholic church, there is no possible salvation^ 
and my purpose now was fully formed to become a priest — a thor- 
ough Jesuit." Dr. Riley was greatly troubled at the thought 
that his parents were Protestants ; but so completely infatuated 
was he, that he felt confident of being able at once to convince 
them of the truth of his new creed, when he should return home. 
He says, " It was my purpose, however, notwithstanding any op- 
position I might meet with, to remain firm in my determination 
to live, to labor, and to die, a Jesuit, for I had been taught not to 
heed the admonitions and the opposition of parents and friends in 
the prosecution of so good a cause." He mentions several oth- 
ers, sons of Protestants, who, like himself, soon became confirm- 
ed Papists. 

The officers of Roman schools, it is possible, may sometimes 
deem it wise to allow the child of Protestant parents to retain 
a Bible ; but are young persons likely to read that sacred book, 
when they know the opposition of their teachers, and that perse- 
verance in such a course will necessarily expose them to ridicule 
and reproach, if not to unkind treatment ? 

To show what reliance is to be placed on the pledges of Ro- 
man institutions not to interfere with the religious opinions of 
Protestant children, I must state another fact. A Protestant la- 



EDUCATION IN ROMAN SCHOOLS. 355 

dy who resided in one of the southern states, several years ago, 
sent her adopted son to St. Mary's college in Kentucky, an insti- 
tution under the care of the Jesuits. About twelve months after 
she visited her son, and was surprised and exceedingly troubled 
when she ascertained that he had been already received into the 
Romish church. She immediately removed him from the col- 
lege, and placed him under my care. I afterwards published the 
facts as she stated them to me. The President of St. Joseph's 
college, situated at Bardstown, made a publication in reply, in 
which he asserted that the boy's mother was a Roman Catholic, 
whose dying request to his adopted mother was, to have him 
trained in that faith ; that he had learned this from the adopted 
mother herself; and that her son,'a gentleman of high standing, 
had so directed the professors of St. Mary's college ; and he even 
obtained from one of those Jesuits a certificate to this effect. — 
Providentially it so happened, that whilst the subject was excit- 
ing public attention, the gentleman who was said to have direct- 
ed the boy to be taught the Romish faith, reached the town 
(Bardstown, Ky.), and immediately gave me a certificate that he 
had given no such direction ; that the boy's mother was not 
known to have been a Roman Catholic, and had never made 
such a request as the President of St Joseph's had pretended. * 
Thus did those Rev. gentlemen abuse the confidence placed in 
them, and then fabricate stories to shield themselves from merited 
reproach. Many similar facts might be stated ; but it is unne- 
cessary, ft is a fact, that the schools established in our country 
are regarded as a most important part of that machinery by which 
the Roman clergy hope to promote and establish their faith. — 
Will they not, then, do their utmost to bring about the desired 
result? They may not, in all cases, make direct efforts to con- 
vince the children of Protestants, that the religion of their pa- 

* These facts, and others connected with the case, were published in the 
Western Protestant, then edited by the author of these lectures, in Bards- 
town, Ky., in the summer of 183G. The Protestant was the first paper in 
the West, so far as the editor is informed, devoted to the Romish controversy. 



356 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

rents is heresy ; for often they will see that indirect influences are 
likely to be the most effectual. 

Some years ago, Bishop Flaget, of Bardstown, Ky., wrote to 
his friends in Europe, as follows : " Still, had I treasures at my 
disposal, I would multiply colleges, and schools for girls and 
boys ; I would consolidate all these establishments, by annexing 
to them lands or annual rents ; I would build hospitals and public 
houses : in a word, I would compel all my Kentuckians to ad- 
mire and love a religion so benevolent and generous, and perhaps 
I should finish by converting them.''^ The editor of the Annals of 
the Association for the Propagation of the Faith, comments as 
follows on Bishop Flaget' s communication : " Mgr. Flaget has 
established in his diocese many convents of nuns, devoted to the 
education of young females. These establishments do wonderful 
good. Catholics and Protestants are admitted indiscriminately. 
The latter, after having finished their education, return to the 
bosom of their families, full of esteem and veneration for their 
instructresses. They are ever ready to refute the calumnies which 
the jealousy of heretics loves to spread against the religious com- 
munities : and often^ when they have no longer the opposition of 
their relations to fear^ they embrace the Catholic religion,''^ In 
the publications made by the Roman clergy in this country, con- 
cerning these schools, Protestant parents are assured that no in- 
fluence will be exerted on the minds of their children, to change 
their religious sentiments, or to convert them to Popery. But in 
their communications to their patrons in Europe, they boast of 
the number of Protestant children converted, who, so soon as 
they can do so, openly embrace the Romish faith. Representa- 
tions so contradictory, can never be reconciled with truth and 
candor ; and none but a corrupt system of religion would seek 
to sustain itself by such means. 

But even if the conductors of Roman schools should strictly 
regard their pledge not to interfere with the religious sentiments 
of Protestant children, it would still be most unsafe to commit 
to them their education. They cannot give such an education as 
American parents should desire their children to have ; and the 



EDUCATION IN ROMAN SCHOOLS. 357 

various influences brought to bear upon them,, directly or indi- 
rectly, would still secure the conversion of many of them to 
Popery. It will be found, on examination, that the large propor- 
tion of the youth educated in Roman schools, if they are not de- 
cided converts, are decidedly prejudiced in favor of their teach- 
ers and of their religious faith. There are in the minds of all 
of us, pleasing and hallowed recollections connected with our 
school-boy days ; and it is most unwise in parents to allow those 
pleasing recollections to be associated with religious error and a 
loose morality. 

The very best that Protestant parents hope for their chil- 
dren, when, placed in Roman schools, is, that they will not be 
seriously injured as to their moral and religious principles. They 
do not expect them to receive correct religious instruction. But 
what right have parents to place their children beyond the reach 
of scriptural instruction and Christian influence, during that most 
interesting period of life, when the deepest and most permanent 
impressions are made upon them ? What right have they to ex- 
pose them to dangers which more mature minds often fail to 
resist ? When they pray for themselves — " Lead us not into 
temptation" — what kind of a prayer do they offer for their 
children whom they have placed in Roman schools ? 

I cannot close this lecture without saying something particu- 
larly concerning those nunneries in which so many Protestant 
children are educated. The nuns all take the vow of poverty^ 
chastity, and obedience. However rich the institution with which 
they are connected, they possess nothing. Separated from friends 
and relatives, they must yield the most implicit obedience to their 
superiors. They are the best slaves in the world. Their vows 
are more potent than the legal claims of slaveholders ; and as 
they are taught to believe that sufTerings endured in this life will 
shorten their stay in the fires of purgatory, they deny them- 
selves the comforts of life, and endure the greatest hardships most 
willingly. Or, if they discover their error, and deplore the folly 
committed in taking such vows upon them, there is no escape from 
their gloomy prison. It is so disreputable in the view of Roman- 



858 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

ists to return to the world, that they prefer suffering even unto to 
death, to such a course. 

Nunneries are money-making establishments. Some of the 
nuns are employed as teachers ; some are house and kitchen ser- 
vants ; and some labor in the fields ! In Kentucky they have 
been seen in the harvest fields, driving the ox-cart, making a fire 
for the priest, saddling his horse, and the like. All their labors 
are performed, as already intimated, without hope of pecuniary 
compensation. There is a nunnery near Bardstown, Ky., located 
on a farm of several hundred acres, the number of whose female 
boarders has averaged from one hundred to one hundred aud fifty. 
The charges for each, including extras^ would not be less than 
one hundred and fifty dollars. The annual income of the insti- 
tution is not less \h^n fifteen tliousand dollars. The outlay is not 
very considerable, since their provisions are mainly raised on 
the farm. If I were to set down the clear annual profit of the 
institution at ten thousand dollars, I should probably be below the 
mark. Almost the whole of this money is earned by the nuns ; 
but no part of it goes to them. Their coarse fare and clothing is 
all they receive. The clergy are enriched by the degradation of 
these poor women, whom they have succeeded in deluding. I 
know not how others may feel, but it appears to me, that every 
Christian and every American should set his face against those 
prisons, where females are incarcerated and degraded from the 
sphere they are destined to fill. 

But what is the real character of the nunneries of our country? 
Are they as pure in morals as they should be? Who knows? 
The nuns are unmarried females. Unmarried men have access 
to those establishments at all times ; and the inmates are expected 
to confess all their sins to them. The affairs of the institution 
are concealed from the eye of the public. Most of the nuns are 
not known, perhaps, to a human being within hundreds of miles 
of them. Some may be removed to a distance, and others take 
their places, and the change may never be known to the commu- 
nity in which the nunnery is located. There is every possible 
facihty for concealing vices which can scarcely be committed by 



EDUCATION IN ROMAN SCHOOLS. 359 

others without detection. It is a fact, admitted even by Roman 
writers, that multitudes of the priests and bishops, and even 
some of the popes, have disregarded their vow of chastity. It 
is admitted, as I proved in a preceding lecture, that many, very 
many priests, whilst hearing confessions, have fallen into gross 
vice and ruined their penitents. It is notorious, that in other 
countries, vice has found its way into nunneries ; and they have 
become corrupt. What evidence, then, have we, that those 
secret establishments among us are what they should be? Sup- 
pose a number of unmarried Protestant ministers should conclude 
to establish institutions of a similar character, and should collect 
from all quarters unmarried females, secluded from public view ; 
would they be tolerated in such a course ? And suppose that 
some of those women should live in their houses with them, as 
they do in the houses of the Roman bishops — houses not by any 
means so public as those of other men, but removed from the 
street, and surrounded by a high wall ; what would be thought of 
such men ? And what right have the Roman clergy to claim 
public confidence, when pursuing a course that would be con- 
sidered most disreputable in other men of equal claims to confi- 
dence ? 

I must here take leave to give you a very brief history of a 
case in point. Some twelve years ago, a nun in Kentucky left 
the institution with which she was connected, and returned to her 
father's house, alleging as her reason the improper conduct of the 
presiding priest towards her. Her father and relatives were ig- 
norant and bigoted Papists. They regarded her as guilty of a 
horrid crime in preferring charges against one of the holy priest- 
hood ; and she was driven from home with threats of violence. 
She went to the house of a Baptist minister, a near neighbor, to 
whom she told her story. The report soon spread through 
the neighborhood, that this woman was charging the priest with 
immorality. A large proportion of the people were Papists ; and, 
of course, there arose much excitement against her. She re- 
mained a short time in the neighborhood, and was suddenly mis- 
sing ; and from that day to this, she has never been heard of ! 



360 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

The present speaker was then editing a paper in Bardstown ; 
and he published the facts in the case. A suit for libel was 
instituted against him, by the President of St. Joseph's college, in 
behalf of he priest implicated in the affair. The damages were 
laid at ten thousand dollars. The suit was pending twelve months. 
The Roman clergy of Kentucky fully identified themselves with 
the suit. The weight of all the nunneries in that region, of 
which there were several, was thrown into the scales. Eminent 
lawyers were employed on both sides. The priests had every 
motive to explain the mysterious absence of the nun, and to pro- 
duce her before the public. The court decided that the defend- 
ant was bound to prove the actual guilt af the priest, and that 
the missing nun was the only competent witness in plea of justi- 
fication. Much testimony was taken, and many facts not pre- 
viously published were proved. The verdict of the jury gave 
the priest damages to the amount of one cent ! The character 
of the jurymen was assailed by some of the friends of the priests, 
or by the priests in disguise. In consequence of which nine of 
them (two others resided at a distance) made a publication from 
which I read the following : " He [the writer of the charges 
against them] again states, that one of the most intelligent of the 
jury has stated publicly, since the trial, that he was for damages, 
or heavy damages. If there was any such juror on that jury, he 
kept his opinion to himself — he did not make it known to the 
other jurors, as he ought to have done. We do affirm that one 
cent was the highest damages named by any one on that jury in 
our hearing ; and we further state, that every one of the jury, who 
was for finding a verdict for the plaintiff' [the priest], did state that 
he would glory in making each one pay his own costs, if it were 
in his power to do so. And we also state, that under all the cir- 
cumstances, but for the instructions of the court, we would have 
been compelled to find a verdict for the defendant" [Rice]. The 
testimony was taken down at the time, signed by the court, and 
filed among the records of the Nelson County Circuit Court. I 
immediately published in the Western Protestant, and afterwards 
in a small volume, a full account of the trial, with the testimony 



EDUCATION IN ROMAN SCHOOLS, 361 

in the case. And it is a fact, that the priests, though they insti- 
tuted suit professedly for the purpose of obtaining the testimony 
and laying it before the public, never have published one line of 
it, nor even the verdict rendered! The public v^ould have re- 
mained ignorant of the verdict, but for the Protestant press. 

1 have given this brief history of the only law-suit in which I 
was ever involved, because it is the only suit of the kind which 
has occurred in our country ; because it shows the estimation in 
which the character of a priest and his nunnery were held, where 
they were well known, where the legal testimony was fully heard, 
and where the most powerful influences were brought to bear by 
the bishop and his clergy to sustain the suit 

The fate of Milly McPherson, the lost nun, is still involved 
in profound mystery. Many believe, and will believe, that she 
was murdered to prevent further exposures of the priests and 
nunneries 1 

Prudent parents will pause and consider, before they place 
their daughters in Roman nunneries to be educated. It cannot be, 
that nuns, the most superstitious of all people, who never think 
for themselves, are the persons to discipline the minds of female 
youth to vigorous and independent thinking. It will be found, I 
apprehend, that the education given in nunneries is far more or- 
namental than solid. But if they were, what they are not, the 
best literary institutions in the land, they are not the places for 
the daughters of Protestant parents. I have in my possession 
other evidences most conclusive, that the nunneries of our coun- 
try are not all pure. Some years ago, a Roman priest, who, in 
consequence of some difficulty with his bishop, had ceased to of- 
ficiate, though not deposed, placed in my hands several letters of 
nuns, one addressed to himself, and the others to another priest, 
which leave no room to doubt, that corruption had found its way 
into the nunnery with which they were connected. As this nun- 
nery had connected with it a female school to which Protestant 
parents were sending their daughters, I deemed it my duty to pub- 
lish them, which I did in the Western Protestant. The Roman 



362 ROMANISM NOT CHRISTIANITY. 

clergy preserved a profound silencej never publishing one word 
by way of vindication. 

In the letter addressed to the priest who placed it in my hands, 
the nun says — '^ I did not see F. David (the bishop) until the 
next Tuesday after we got home. I went then to speak to him. 
He told me he had received my letters in due time, but that I 
had not opShed any secret to him whatever — that he knew these 
things long before, and that he was not at all astonished at any- 
thing that had happened, from the experience of former years. — 
I do not mention these things to excuse my own faults ; neither 
have I any reason to regret the manifestations I then made, 
though at the time so repugnant to my feelings. * * * Then 
let me entreat you, as a friend to virtue, not to let your mind be 
prejudiced by what is past with regard to the little community 
now under your pastoral care. [THis priest had just taken charge 
of the nunnery.] If some have had the misfortune to be implica- 
ted by them, all have not, to my certain knowledge." &c. An- 
other nun addresses her priest in the following style : O ! do 
come and see your jpoor sacred dog — if only to spend a few hours 
vni\\ her. Pray much for your "poor sacred dog^ and favor her 
with a few lines." This same nun after her priest had turned 
with scorn and contempt from her, addressed him another let- 
ter, in which she says — '^ Since you have found out the unknown 
blessing of my being removed from this place, I shall not give 
way to excessive grief on the occasion. * * * I am very far 
from wishing to stay with a confessor, that avails himself of eve- 
ry provocation, real or imaginary, to express his aversion to my 
person, and his regret for my coming back. If I stay it will be 
through compulsion. * * * If I wished the appellation of 
wife^ sweet-hearty or lovely dear^ as you told me I did, I certainly 
would take some means to gain them." 

I take no pleasure in making such developments as these ; but 
nunneries are public institutions, where Protestant parents are 
invited to educate their daughters ; and it is the solemn duty of 
those who know something of their true character, to lift a warn- 
ing voice. There may, possibly, be nunneries free from such 



EDUCATION IN ROMAN SCHOOLS. 353 



scandals; but there is so much concealment about them, that it is 
impossible for the public to know them. And those who know 
anything of human nature, we would think, would never confide 
in them. 

In conclusion, I must express my deep conviction, that Protest- 
ant denominations have committed one capital error in the impor 
tant matter of education. They have established and endowed 
colleges for boys and young men ; but they have left female edu- 
cation almost wholly dependent upon individual enterprise. The 
consequence has been, and is, that their female schools have been 
generally short-lived. Teachers, generally, have not funds to 
erect suitable buildings, furnish apparatus, and place schools on 
a solid foundation. There have, therefore, been constant efforts 
and constant failures; and the public, losing confidence in Pro- 
testant schools, have turned to those permanently established by 
Papists. 

And why should such a difference be made in providing for 
the education of the two sexes? Is female education less impor- 
tant, either to church or state? It is not. The earliest and the 
deepest moral impressions ever made on the mind by human 
instrumentality are those made by mothers. If the mother of a 
family be an ignorant, sluttish woman, it matters not what is the 
character of the father, the family is ruined. If the mother be 
a Roman Catholic, the children will not probably be Protestants. 

I should like to say much more on this important subject ; but 
I have already occupied much of your time. Allow me to say, 
that the Roman clergy understand this subject. They have seen 
the error of Protestants ; and they have multiplied female insti- 
tutions in every part of the country. They are far more nume- 
rous than their colleges and schools for boys. I trust the day is 
at hand when Presbyterians and Protestants generally will awake 
to the incalculable importance of this subject, and will establish 
permanent female institutions of a proper character, and so en- 
dowed as to place a good education within the reach of the poor, 
as well as the rich. 

My friends, F now close this series of lectures on Popery and 



364 ROMANISM NOT CHRIS TIANITY. 

Protestantism, which has occupied the attention of large and in- 
telligent audiences for a number of evenings. I commenced 
them with the purpose of avoiding fersonal abuse, and yet ot 
speaking with much plainness of speech against the dangerous 
errors of Rome. I am conscious of no unkind feehng towturd 
Roman Catholics. I sincerely believe that I should do them the 
greatest possible kindness, could I convince them of their errors, and 
prevail on them to take the Word of God as " a lamp to their fee 
and a li-ht to their path." The authors I have quoted are almost 
exclusively Roman Catholics, of high standing in their own 
church. I have examined this whole subject, with great care, for 
years past. I have read, not the writings of Protestants but of 
Papists. My conclusions have been formed after due delibera- 
tion. I have now discharged an important duty; and I leave 
those who have heard me, to judge of the arguments adduced. 
I do not complain of the Roman clergy, when they pursue a simi- 
lar course. In the cathedral in this city they have freely, and 
often in offensive language, preached on the points of controversy 
between Protestants and the church of Rome. I only wish they 
were less afraid of meeting us fairly on these great questions. 
Truth has everything to gain by fair discussion. 

May the God of all truth teach us, that we may know and 
obey the truth, through Jesus Christ, our glorious Redeemer. 
Amen. 



VALUABLE 

SCHOOL AND MUSIC BOOKS, 

PUBLISHED BY 

no MAIN STREET, CINCiraATI. 



A National Geography, for Schools ; 

Illustrated by 220 Engravings and 33 Maps ; with a Globe 
Map, on a new plan. By S. G. Goodrich^ author of Peter 
Parley^s Tales. 

The awkward separation of Maps from the descriptive text, in geographical 
works, has long been regarded as a formidable evil — especially in those designed 
for the youthful student. With a view to obviate this, the author of the present 
work issued a book on Geography, about twelve years since, in which the maps 
were placed in contiguity with the reading matter. This experiment led the 
w^riter to form the design of the present work, which was undertaken some 
years since, but laid aside for other engagements. 

The following are deemed to be some of the prominent features of the present 
work : — 

1. It is designed as a school-book — as a book for teaching; and nothing in the 
work is allowed to interfere with this design. 

2. Simplicity, perspicuity and convenience, have been carefully studied in the 
arrangement of the whole work. 

3. In respect to maps, a new and useful device has been adopted, which we 
entitle a Globe-Map. It is a substitute for an artificial globe, with the advan- 
tage of being easily handled, and constantly before the eye, during the early 
stage of the study. It is believed that the utility of this simple contrivance, in 
giving correct notions of the face of the earth, and imprinting lasting pictures on 
the mind, .of the form and situation of its leading physical features, cannot be 
easily over-estimated. 

4. As a means of rendering the progress of the pupil at once agreeable and 
effective, the author ho^ endeavored to invest the subject with every degree of 
interest of which it is capable. He has sought to keep the attention alive by 
vivid descriptions. 

This work is manufactured in the best style, as regards paper, printing, and 
binding; and sold at retail for 50 cens per copy 



Parley's Geography, for Beginners ; 

With eighteen Maps, and one hundred and fifty Engravings, 

This work is by the same popular author as " The JVatioJial Geography.^* 
His design has been to make this work a pleasing guide through t'le early stages 
of geographical study. It will be observed, therefore, that the first steps are 
rendered easy, and no great task is required, till the meaning of geography is 
acquired, and until certain leading ideas — as the shape of the earth, the use o€ 
maps, &G. — have been clearly formed. Price only 2o cents pkr copy. 



PRIMARY EDUCATIOIV: 

AS CONNECTED 

WITH THE USE OF 

SANDERS^ SERIES OE SCHOOL BOOKS, 

COMPRISING 

SANDERS' PRIMARY SCHOOL PRIMER, pp. 48. 
SCHOOL READER, 1st BOOK, pp. 120. 
« SCHOOL READER, 2nd BOOK, pp. 180. 
SCHOOL READER, 3rd BOOK, pp. 250. 
SCHOOL READER, 4th BOOK, pp. 304. 
« SPELLING BOOK, pp. 168. 



The number of Elementary School Books extant, renders it 
necessary to state, briefly, some of the general advantages 
which this series possesses over others. The opinion too gen- 
erally prevails, even among teachers, that there is no room for 
improvement in books of this character — that anything contain- 
ing columns of words, or reading matter, is suitable for a spel- 
ling or reading book. 

It is in consequence of this idea, that so little care is taken in 
the selection of such books for schools, and that so few, after 
passing through years of drudgery, come out good readers and 
spellers — the first essential accomplishment for a good scholar. 
If those entertaining this opinion will have but the candor to 
suspend it, until they have perused the following pages, it is be- 
lieved they will be convinced that they have fallen in with a 
common error, and that it is not without strong reasons this se- 
ries is offered to the public. 

The series forms, as far as it is carried, a complete system. 
Every step the child takes, raises him a little higher, and gives 
him a firm foot-hold for his next advance. It commences with 
the alphabet, and ends with the most difiicuU forms of 
spelling and reading, and yet the ascent is so gradual as to 
iiardly attract the attention of the pupil. He finds each lesson 
SO full, that with but little attention on the part of the teacher he 



becomes perfectly familiar with it before he is required to try his 
strength on the next, and it is believed he must be sadly wanting 
in native power of mind, who, having under proper instruction, 
passed regularly through to the end of the series, does not close 
the last book a good speller and a good reader. A general de- 
scription of the manner in which this plan is carried out, is 
here given. 

THE PRIMARY SCHOOL PRIMER. 

This is designed as the first book for the learner, and to serve 
as an introduction to the First Reader^ and not to the Spelling 
Book. It has carefully been prepared with special reference to 
being used as a school book. It is, therefore, bound in a sub- 
stantial manner, with a stiff cover and cloth back, A particu- 
lar reference will here be made to it, since the principle on 
which it is constructed, presents the plan uniformly adopted 
throughout the entire Series. 

The first two lessons after the alphabet, p. 14, embrace all 
the common words of two letters, in the English language — 
being thirty in number. The syllables^ ba^ bo^ bu^ or bla^ bio, 
hlu^ &c., are not inserted. When the child can read^ spell, and 
^jronounce at sight — things indispensable — these wordSj three 
of them are arranged in a sentence for reading ; thus, ^^we go 
in:' 

But lest he be unable to give the words of this little sentence 
a ready utterance, from having seen them with so many others, 
they are for the purpose of calling his attention, arranged pre- 
viously in a spelling column, in the same order as they occur 
in the sentence. The same arrangement with words of two let- 
ters, is continued for two pages — the sentences increasing in 
length to the number of six words. After this, words of three 
letters are in the same manner gradually introduced, and so on 
with words of four letters. 

By this means, when the scholar is required to read a sentence, 
he is prepared to give an easy and natural utterance to each 
word, and learns to read, without acquiring those strained and 
unnatural habits, which cost him his very breath to practice. 
Moreover, experience has proved, that by this arrangement, 
with the co-operation of the teacher, the progress of the scholar 
is greatly facilitated. 

In other Series, the learner usually first spells a long list of 
words, which, for the most part, forms no portion of the lesson 
he is soon required to read. The consequence is, to accomplish 
it, he is obliged to make the greatest possible effort, and the 
more he struggles, the worse his reading. Such a practice will 
inevitably beget a forced and stammering manner. It is impos- 



sible to prevent it. On the other hand, if he can read his les- 
son without effort, (which he is able to do, when he is familiar 
with each word composing it,) he will acquire a fluent style that 
cannot but be admired. 

One of the principal advantages of this system, is its simpli- 
city. Instead of its being a mysterious uncertainty, 

'^Where all is new, and all unknown,'^ 
the child clearly sees the very process by which he progresses. 
The book is composed wholly of words of one syllable^ 
with the exception of a few lessons at the close. 

THE SCHOOL READER, FIRST BOOK. 

From w^hat has been said with regard to the Primer, it will be 
understood that this book, as well as those that follow it, are 
constructed on the same plan- — the difficult words being arrang- 
ed for spelling before each reading lesson— the reverse of most 
other series. The fiistfifli/ pages of this reader, are made up 
of words of one syllable, notwithstanding the quantity con- 
tained in the Primer. After this, words of two syllables are 
gradually introduced, which, with few exceptions, continue 
through the book. In order that correct tastes and habits ia 
reading be early acquired, the subject of each lesson is brought 
fully within the comprehension of children : and though the 
lessons are designed to interest^ yet not the less to instruct 

THE SCHOOL READER, SECOND BOOK. 

The first fifty pages of this book are made up almost wholly 
of monysyllables and dissyllables. The lessons are but one 
grade above those of the First Reader. The most difficult words, 
as in the preceding book, are formed into spelling lessons before 
the reading. The unnecessary repetition of these AA'ords has 
been carefully avoided, and they have been selected in the order 
they occur in the lesson. 

In primary instruction. Pictures hold an important place, as 
a means of facilitating the progress — attracting the attention — 
and enlisting the interest of the scholar. But their use, like 
other good things, is liable to great abuse. The practice of 
constantly crowding before the eyes of children luminous pic- 
tures, excites the fancy to excess, and soon withdraws the atten- 
tion wholly from the lesson. After having been thus stimula- 
ted for a time, the mind becomes dormant, and the child mani- 
fests no disposition to peruse even lessons which are thus illu- 
jiiinatedy much less, those not. To use them in a proper man-* 
ner, has been particularly regarded in these books. The most 
attractive pictures, however^ held up to the view of the scholar 



will be found in the lessons themselves — attractive, not from 
^heer novelty^ but from the healthful instruction, both moral and 
ntellectual, which they afford. 

THE SCHOOL READER, THIRD BOOK. 

An additional feature characterizes this as well as the Fourth 
Reader^ which is, Definitions. Each difficult word, when it 
first occurs in a reading exercise, is defined in immediate connec- 
tion with the spelling, before the lesson. It will be remembered 
that in other Series now in use, the scholar is required to ''spell 
and define" the difficult words after the lesson, but they are not 
defined. Now, the plan of actually defining before the lesson, 
is not only to be preferred on account of its convenience, but al- 
so as it saves the expense of purchasing dictionaries for that 
purpose. Besides, if the scholar be referred to a dictionary for 
the definition, why not refer him, also, to the same source for 
the spelling? Moreover, if it is important, as all admit it is, that 
he understand what he reads, ought he not to be required to 
learn the signification of such words before he reads? For cer- 
tainly, if he does not understand the parts, he cannot understand 
the whole. 

What can be more absurd than requiring a child to go through 
a whole series of elementary books, without meeting with a sin- 
gle definition, except the precious few of two hundred at the 
close of the spelling book? Why, he merely accumulates' a 
cloud of words, of which he never knows the use! To de- 
fine the simple words that are made use of in the First and Sec- 
ond Readers^ would be "darkening counsel." Moreover, to re- 
quire it, would be asking too much for those only capable of 
reading in such books. But scholars, prepared for a book of 
this rank, are capable of learning for themselves, with proper 
facilities presented, the meaning of those words with which they 
are not already familiar. For them to pass indifferently over 
words, unacquainted with their import, every judicious teacher 
must deem it improper in the extreme. Yet when no means are 
provided for them to learn the definition, except by reference to 
some foreign source, how often is it regarded a sufficient apolo- 
gy, with the teacher, for treating the subject with utter neglect! 
But Avhen the definitions are given, as in this and the Fourth 
Reader^ there is no longer any disposition to pass them by. 

In defining, the literal or general meaning is given. This 
is, the sense the word generally bears. When it is learned, the 
figurative and other shades of meaning are at once understood 
by the connection in which the word stands. But when tho 



5 

figurative sense is very foreign from the literal, that meaning is 
also given, as near as can be, independent of the connection. To 
define only the sense in which a word happens to be used as is 
done in books now prominently before the public, is worse than 
not to define at all ; for what is given as figurative^ is taken as 
literal. Besides, it is attempting to give that meaning which 
can only be learned properly by the connection. 

THE SCHOOL READER, FOURTH BOOK 

This book differs, in an essential particular, from any other 
4th Reader, or book sustaining that relation ever published. 
Part 1st embracing thirty four pages, is devoted to instruction in 
the science of reading, or Elocution. It is divided into short 
lessons, with questions appended. The instructions are more 
elementary, more practical — and accompanied by more numer- 
ous exercises — than are found in the ordinary works on Elocu- 
tion. It is designed that while each lesson is made use of, as a 
reading exercise, it be also studied as a Grammar lesson. 

The Rhetorical principles given are those of our American au- 
thor, Dr. Porter. He has laid out a new path, or done for Elocu- 
tion, what Campbell and Whately have performed for the more ab- 
struse branches of Rhetoric. Instead of a set of arbitrary rules 
which might serve to direct the scholar in giving the proper tone 
and emphasis to this or that piece set for declamation, and as effec- 
tually murder every other of a different style and subject, he has 
by a long course of study, and close observation, sought for the 
universal principles of Eloquence, and as far as the nature of the 
subject would admit, reduced them to a respective scientific form. 
He does not profess to give to the public a "Rhetorical Guide'^ that 
may make a man a good speaker ; but to analize the nature of 
Eloquence, and to lay down distinctly, and illustrate fully, the 
principles that every real orator follows, and whether he knows 
it or not always has followed, and never has violated without a 
failure proportionate to his offence. The Elocutionist who pro- 
ceeds on the ordinary plan, acts as wisely as would a Grammari- 
an, who instead of searching out the inherent principles of a 
language, to which all its best writers, Avhether knowingly, or 
unknowingly conform, should frame a set of arbitrarymaxims of 
his own for the use of all who would speak or write with pro- 
priety; — or as sensibly as a logician who instead of setting 
forth the mode in which universal reason acts — the principles by 
which all correct reasoning must be conducted, should, in the 
plentitude of his caprice, manufacture a Reasoner's Guide, with- 
out any reference to, or it may be, altogether foreign to the intel- 
lectual structure; — or further, as well as the musician, who gives 



instruction for learning this, or that piece, instead of teaching the 
science of his art and rules for execution, that are of universal 
application. By the former plan, one, it is true, may learn to 
perform many pieces admirably, but his musical knowledge be- 
gins and ends with them. All the directions he has received, 
are confined to the ''lessons," and if he attempts to extend them 
to others, it is with a certainty of frequent blunders, and a want 
of all confidence, even when he is right. Just so it must be 
with any capricious system of Elocution. It may serve to di- 
rect the reader in giving the proper tone and emphasis to words 
and sentences on the particular pages to which it refers, but 
there its utility ends ; and if its rules be thoroughly learned, as 
all elementary knowledge should, so that they be incorporated 
in the mind, and become, as it were, habits of the understanding, 
which the scholar in after life follows unconsciously, and with- 
out knowing whence they came, they cannot fail to vitiate his 
taste, make his delivery stiff and unnatural, and in a good degree 
render abortive the best natural powers. 

The success that "Porter's Rhetorical Reader," has met with, 
shows how well his design has been carried out. It has become 
a standard text book all over the Union. It has been recom- 
mended by many of the most distinguished professors in our 
American colleges, and has already passed through two hun- 
dred and thirty large editions. 

In part 2nd,the notation., for the proper inflection, emphasis, 
ike, is only employed in cases where there is a liability to err, 
or in passages peculiarly illustrative of some Rhetorical princi- 
ples, which it is desired the scholar should be led to observe. 
The continuous use of a notation., in unnecessary as well as ne- 
cessary cases, is as wise as would be the erection of "Guide 
Posts" at every corner of the fence — from their frequency they 
are passed unobserved, even where it is needful that they be re- 
garded. It is a grossly mistaken idea, and one entertained only 
by the most superficial teachers, that the modulation of the voice 
should be regulated entirely by notation^ instead of the sense. 
In fact the sense is the only notation of any use in ordinary ca- 
ses. Anything like a substitute is pernicious. The constant 
use of it is not unlike the puerile practice, (formerly in use, but 
now utterly repudiated by judicious teachers,) of affixing to a 
defining vocabulary a notation, designating the parts of speech 
to which the several words belong — requiring the scholar to 
distinguish them, not from a knowledge of what constitutes a 
noun, verb., S^c, butsheerly from the notation. 

In the 1st and 2nd Readers the words that compose the spel- 
ling lessons, are divided into syllables — in the 3rd and 4th, only 
where there is a liability to mistake, and at the same time the 



pronunciation is denoted. To do it in all cases, would be per- 
forming for teacher and scholar what they ought to do them- 
selves, and to suppose them incapable, after such assistance as 
has been afforded, would, to say the least, be paying them no 
very high compliment; moreover, without such practice, they 
might be rendered incapable of ever doing it with propriety. 

Besides the ordinary questions on the subject of the lessons as 
in other books, there are others paramount in importance — ques- 
tions as to the proper inflections, emphasis. <&c., which are ne- 
cessary to give full expression to the sense. Annexed to these 
questions, are references to the instructions of Part First, where 
the principles now required to be applied are fully elucidated, 
thus giving them great practical value. 

GENERAL FEATURES. 

PniNT.— This is open, clear, and distinct. That in the Primer 
is large— In the First Reader^ it is a size smaller — in the Sec- 
ond Reader^ the same as in the First. That of the Third, 
smaller, but not so small as in the Fourth Reader, which is the 
ordinary size. This feature must be deemed a matter of much 
importance. That the print in a Second^ should be as small as 
in a Fourth Reader^ which is the case in other series, must be 
regarded as no inconsiderable objection. 

Progression. — An equally serious objection, urged against 
every series published, is that the progression is too rapid. 
This is especially true in passing from the Second to the Third 
Reader — the Third being quite as elevated, both in style and 
subjects, as the Fourth Reader. The consequence is, the schol- 
ar is soon lost, as it were in an interminable maze. This fault, 
which is no minor one, has never been regarded as applicable 
to this Series. The gradation is both easy and natural — the 
subjects, while they are instructive, are calculated to win the at- 
tention of the learner, and allure him on, step by step, to that 
which is more advanced. Nothing can have a more pernicious 
influence on the mind of youth, than reading that which they 
are unable to comprehend. The practice not only begets in 
them habits of indifference, but, more than that, they acquire a 
perfect disgust for reading of any description, however interest- 
ing. 

Character of the Lessons. — Purity of sentiment and 
thought, must be considered of no small importance. While 
this has been regarded, elegance of expression, chasteness of 
style, and adaptedness to instruct in reading have by no means 
been overlooked. 



I 



8 

Variety. — Another feature, not less important, which char 
acterizes this Series, is the great variety it embraces, both in sub- 
ject and style. The manner of reading must be adapted to the 
style of the composition. If narrative, it must be read in the 
narrative style — -if argumentative, then in the argumentative 
style. Hence the importance of variety. For, if the style of 
the composition be uniform, that of the reading must necessarily 
become uniform and monotonous. This is invariably the result 
in the use of histories for reading books — a practice already too 
prevalent. 

Spelling and Pronunciation. — Throughout the Series, the 
Spelling and Pronunciation is uniform — ^being in conformity 
with Webster. 

SANDER'S SPELLING BOOK. 

This book is designed to be used in connection with the 
Readers — being taken up soon after the scholar begins the 
First Reader. It contains many classes of words for spelling, 
which are often omitted in others, as proper names; the States 
with their abbreviations and capitals; the books of the Old and 
New Testaments with their abbreviations ; words which are pro- 
nounced nearly as well as others quite alike, &c. The 
instructions in the Elements of Orthography are more com- 
plete and easily comprehended than those commonly found in 
spelling books —being accompanied with a scheme for parsings 
by which they are practically applied. 

In most of the lessons a plan is adopted, by which the scholar 
is able to learn, to some extent the meaning of the words which 
he spells — a word in one column defining, in part, one in an op- 
posite column. Thus, — 

a bate de crease I al lure en tice 

com prise in elude | con cur a gree 

By this arrangement the words are contrasted in signification, 
and hence, the differences between the words, in meaning, can 
easily be pointed out, as well as the resemblance. The words 
however, can be spelled in the ordinary manner, if desired, since 
they are as well classified as if not thus arranged. 

The spelling and pronunciation, are as in the Readers, in 
accordance with Webster's Dictionary. Therefore, the follow- 
ing inconsistencies, with many others of a similar nature, which 
abound in books conformable to Walker, are avoided. The spel- 
ling within the parentheses, is as adopted in this book. When 



9 

there is none thus annexed to a word, the spelhng m this book 
is the same as that in others. 

Villain, villany (villainy), villanous (villainous) — embassy, 
ambassador (embassador), ambassadress (embassadress) — em- 
bark, embarcation (embarkation) — ^dependant (dependent), inde- 
pendent — roll, unrol (unroll), enrol (enroll) — will, wilful (will- 
ful) — stillness, fulness, (fullness) — recall, enthral (inthrall) from 
thrall — illness, dulness (dullness) — install, instalment (install- 
ment) — enter, centre (center) — neuter, nitre (niter) — sober, sa- 
bre (saber) — diameter, metre, (meter) — high, height (hight) — 
highness, heighten (highten) — perilous, marvellous (marvelous) 
— novelist, duellist (duelist) — equality, equalling (equaling) — 
scandalous, libellous (libelous,) — cooler, woollen, (woolen) im- 
moveable (immovable), removable, irremoveable (irremovable) 
— appro vable, irreproveable (irreprovable) — ratable, saleable 
(salable) — curable, sizeable (sizable), blameable (blamable)- - 
ensure (insure) — ensurance (insurance) — endict (indict) — en- 
dorse (indorse) — enclose (inclose) — aught, nought (naught) — • 
rackoon (raccoon) — visiter (visitor) — instructer (instructor) — • 
riband (ribin) — expense, from the Latin expe7isum, offence (of- 
fense) from the Latin qfensus, offensive — correction, connexion 
(connection) — stupify (stupefy), stupefaction — flax, axe (ax) — • 
honour (honor), honorary — musick (music), musical, &c. &c. 

From the foregoing, it is evident that this spelling, to say 
nothing of pronunciation, is not only more uniform than in 
books founded on Walker's Dictionary, but also more nearly 
agrees with present practice. General Rules for spelling, 
which are quite uniform in their application, are given on the 
last two pages of the book, to which reference is to be made 
while spelling the preceding lessons. By a proper attention to 
those rules, the spelling of large classes of words, which is of- 
ten mistaken, will be readily acquired. 

The efforts of the Author, in preparing this Series, have thus 
far met with a hearty response from the friends of education, in 
the generous patronage they have extended to the works — hav- 
ing been adopted in the schools of Cincinnati, Brooklyn, Pitts- 
burgh, Rochester, St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, Dayton, Colum- 
bus, Thirty Counties in the State of New York, etc. etc. etc. 

It may here be mentioned, moreover, that the best evidence of 
their merits, is evinced in the attempts that have been made, and 
are making, to imitate them, in some cases by issuing new 
books, but mostly in remodeling old ones. 



WELLS'S SCHOOL GRAMMAR: 



40,000 COPIES SOLD THE FIRST YEAR OF PUBLICATION. 

NOTICES OF THE WORK. 

Before undertaking the publication of this work, the publishers requested that 
the manuscript might be submitted to the exami7iation of Mr. William Russell, 
Instructor in Elocution, and Author of a series of popular School Books, for 
the purpose of ascertaining his views respecting its merits. The following is 
his testimonial : — 

Peculiar Merits of Mr. Wells^s Grammar. 

1. The work is remarkably exact in its definitions, and, at the same time, 
free from redundancies in expression. 

2. The language of the explanatory notes is peculiarly simple, direct, and 
clear. 

3. The character of the whole work is strictly practical. The rules are 
plain and brief; and they are concisely expressed. The examples are strik- 
ingly apposite. The Exercises are apparently selected with great care. 

4. The theory of English Grammar is, throughout, laid down with pecu- 
liar distinctness. It is kept perfectly free from the metaphysical vagueness 
of Murray's system. Every point of practical importance is thoroughly in- 
vestigated, and reference is carefully made to the researches of preceding 
writers, in all cases which admit of being determined by weight of authority. 
So full and instructive is this part of the work, that it seems adequate for all 
the purposes of teachers as well as learners. To the latter it furnishes the 
requisites to a critical knowledge of the subject ; and to the former a volume 
of authoritative references, hitherto unequalled for exactness and extent of 
information. Yet all this amount of instruction is so judiciously compressed 
as not to encumber the text. 

5. A glance at the work will suffice to show that it is original and inde- 
pendent in its character, while it is perfectly free from unnecessary and irre- 
levant peculiarities, 

6. To teachers who have been desirous of seeing a manual which should 
present the system adopted by Lowth and by Murray, freed from perplexities, 
and entanglements, and self-contradictions, — not to speak of obvious errors 
and omissions, — all of which abound in the latter of these authors, Mr. 
Wells's work must prove a useful and acceptable aid. 

October, 1845. 



From Prof Chester Dewey, D. D., of Rochester, late President of the New 
York State Teachers^ Association. 
I need only say that you have more teaching of the grammar of the lan- 
guage, and of practical composition, than any other English Grammar I 
know, and in far less space. You have no strange terms and new words to 
offend the critical teacher's ear or taste. Your Grammar is a great improve- 



merit on all that are studied in our schools and academies, and teaches the 
knowledge of the language in a practical manner, easier to the teacher and 
more improving to the pupil. The study of your Grammar will be not so 
much parsings as analysis, and comprehension, and right use of our lan- 
guage. . 

April 14, 1846 

From George F. Magovn^ A. M.^ Principal of FlatteviUe Academy^ Grant 
County^ Wisconsin. 

Gentlemen: — Having examined Mr. Wells's "School Granunar" with 
some care, I am prepared to say that in my judgment it is the most valuable 
English Grammar before the public. Every page bears marks of thorough 
and scholarly investigation into the facts and laws of our language, and a 
careful precision in the structure of definitions. It seems to me the best sum- 
mary of correct present usage we have. 

There is improvement in Mr. W.^s book without innovation-. There are 
results of what may be called the literature and the metaphysics of the subject, 
made practical. The statements of principles are eminently concise and clear, 
the examples uncommonly well chosen from a wide range of sources, the 
notes brief and to the point, and the citations of authorities satisfactory. For 
teachers who aim at thoroughness, I consider the book ad rem, emphatically 
THE '^School Gramiviar." 

The excellence of the arrangement and typography of its pages, a glance 
of the eye will discover. 

This Text-book should go universally into the schools of the West. It 
would give me great pleasure to see Mr. W.'s Grammar take the field fron* 
the imperfect books in use among us, and keep it. 

Nov. 7, 1846. 

From the New Englander^ a Quarterly Feview^ published at New Haven. 
This is an admirable School Grammar. We think it will be acknow- 
ledged by all to be the best which has hitherto appeared. 

From the New York Tribune. 
If we are not greatly mistaken, this is the best English Grammar extant. 



Commendatory testimonials, sufficient to fill a volume might be given of 
this work, but we must content ourselves here by saying that such men as 
Preset. Smith, of Marietta College; Rev. Mr. Tenney, Principal of Marietta 
Female Seminary; Rev. Mr. Graves, Principal of Kingsville Academy; 
JProf. Merrick, of the Wesleyan University at Delaware, Ohio; Prof. 
Allen, of the Baptist Institution, Covington, Ky.;. Rev. Mr. Fairchild, 
of Lawrenceburg, Indiana; Mr. Hardin&, Principal of Select School for Young 
Ladies ; Mr. H. White, Principal of Boys' Select School, and C. S. Bryant, 
Esq., Chairman of Committee on Text Books for Public Schools of Cincin- 
nati, commend the work in the strongest terms, as the BEST PRACTICAL 
GRAMMAR FOR SCHOOLS BEFORE THE PUBLIC. 

Price 37 ^-2 Cents. Printed and Bound in the best mannen 



3477 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson ParK Dnve 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




017 318 444 A 



.<^ 






•%;,,^^:«t;j 



















.:'f'V 



